Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-31-25 Public Comment - D. Carty - Public comment in support of Application No. 25033 (Appeal of The Guthrie)
From:Daniel Carty To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public comment in support of Application No. 25033 (Appeal of The Guthrie) Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 7:15:21 AM Attachments:DanielCarty_Comment_App25033_3-31-25.pdf DanielCarty_References_App25033_3-31-25.zip CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. March 31, 2025; 7:15am To: Bozeman City Commission Subject: Application No. 25033, appeal of City's decision to approve The Guthrie 2development. Attached are: (1) A pdf of my public comment in support of Application No. 25033, which seeks to overturn the Community Development Department’s administrative decision to conditionallyapprove The Guthrie (Application No. 24493). (2) A zip-compressed folder containing multiple pdfs of reference materials used in the writing of my public comment. Please contact me if you have questions related to any of the attached pdfs. Thank you. Daniel Carty 213 N. 3rd Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 Ph: 406-548-2810 Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 1 of 26 March 31, 2025 Dear Bozeman City Commissioners, I am writing in support of Appeal No. 25033 (Appeal), which seeks to overturn the City of Bozeman (City) Community Development Department’s (Staff) administrative decision to conditionally approve The Guthrie, Application No. 24493 (as follows): I. Staff failed to apply compulsory Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) standards and guidelines to the form, mass, and scale of the proposed building, which is not compatible in mass or scale with the site or adjacent residential neighborhoods, including criterion set forth in 38.230.100.A.5.c Nine times the Staff Report for Application No. 24493 inaccurately refers to the property as “adjacent”’ or “nearby” to the neighborhood. In fact, the building site is within, not adjacent to, the neighborhood. The building site’s legal description, Karp Addition, is the same as other homes within the area and places it within the neighborhood, not “outside,” “nearby,” or “adjacent to” as stated in the Staff Report and the City’s summary of the Appeal. Nor is the building site in a “transition area between the commercial corridor of N. 7th Ave and the nearby residential development” as characterized in Section 11 of the Staff Report. When the original nursing home was constructed in 1958 by the Spady family, this family purchased three individual residential lots directly across the street from their home on which to build it. Although the nursing home was a legal, nonconforming use, it has always been within and a part of the residential neighborhood. The Staff Report addressing the Appeal attempts to situate the site’s “neighborhood” as defined by the boundaries of the Midtown Neighborhood Association. However, it is completely inappropriate for Staff to determine appropriateness for a development based on the boundaries of the Midtown Neighborhood Association, an organization that exists to solely to communicate with City government. Although “neighborhood” is not a term defined in the UDC, The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions by Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom defines “neighborhood” as “an area of a community with characteristics that distinguish it from other areas and that may include distinct ethnic or economic characteristics, housing types, schools, or boundaries defined by physical barriers, such as major highways and railroads, or natural features, such as weather bodies of topography.” And, "Pursuant to State Tax Department Administrative Notice 2006-16 (Jan.31, 2006), a “neighborhood” is defined as a “geographical area exhibiting a high degree of homogeneity in residential amenities, land use, economic and social trends, and housing characteristics'" Mountain America LLC v. Huffman (W.Va. 2009). The review authority should determine the neighborhood’s area with the characteristics used by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, who the City engaged to conduct architectural inventory surveys in 2019 and 2020. The “purpose of the inventory was to collect current data pertaining to architectural resources to continue supporting the City’s Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District programs.” Their report outlined their methodology as follows: Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 2 of 26 To provide context to our site evaluations and aid in prioritizing future research efforts to determine district potential where it exists in the surveyed area, Metcalf has compiled a summary of neighborhood characteristics based on existing geographic groupings of sites, i.e., city subdivisions. These neighborhood boundaries are somewhat subjective and may prove, through further survey work, to be inadequate. However, we believe they provide a reasonable framework for consideration of district potential. Metcalf goes on to describe the two most relevant neighborhoods1 that the City should use to determine appropriateness for future historic districts as: Karp’s Addition Two properties were recorded at a Survey Level II within Karp’s Addition. Like the adjacent Violett Addition, this area was developed following WWII. John and Treentje Karp, Floyd and Florence Spady, J.A. and Maggie Spady, and John P. and Mary Cloninger subdivided and platted this area into lots, blocks, streets, avenues, and alleys as Karp’s Addition in 1946. The small subdivision is characterized by mixed residential and commercial properties. The recorded properties reflect historic associations with the Nationalization and Postwar Expansion phases of Bozeman’s development. One of the two properties is an Art Moderne apartment building built in 1947. The other is a 1959 Mid-Century Modern convalescence home. Both properties are in good condition and retain sufficient integrity to convey historic character. Violett Addition Twenty-one properties were recorded at a Survey Level II within the Violett Addition. The Violett Addition is a Mid-20th Century neighborhood that was platted in 1941 by Lena E. Border and Harvey E. and Ina I. Murdock. The area was mostly developed following WWII and consists primarily of 1 to 1.5-story single-unit houses. Metcalf recorded 17 residential properties, three commercial properties, and one educational facility, the Whittier Elementary School, within the addition. The properties reflect historic associations within the Nationalization and Postwar Expansion phases of Bozeman’s development. Eleven of the houses recorded are Minimal Traditional in their architectural style. Five Ranch-style houses were also recorded, including a modern house built in 1990 (424 N 6th Ave). Other residential styles noted include Mid-Century Modern and a vernacular bungalow. The three Gonzalez, 9/30/2020 Page 6 commercial buildings recorded vary in style, with little embellishment, and the school is a Mid- Century Modern style structure. Most of the properties Metcalf recorded within this neighborhood are in good or excellent condition and retain sufficient integrity to convey their historic character. Metcalf’s management recommendations to the City concluded: The Violett Addition may also be a candidate for district potential, as the small, cohesive neighborhood has associations with the Postwar phase of Bozeman’s development, a time period not strongly reflected in existing NRHP listings in the City. Eighty-one percent of the properties recorded within this Addition retain sufficient integrity and, while the area was not entirely recorded as part of the survey, that number indicates the 1 BHAP Metcalf maps.pdf Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 3 of 26 surrounding properties likely also retain integrity. It is recommended that further study of the Violett Addition also consider inclusion of contemporaneous developments in adjacent subdivisions (e.g., Karp Addition), as they may be linked thematically. Therefore, in consideration of the site’s location being within the Karp Addition and Metcalf’s recommendation that the Karp and Violett additions as contemporaneous developments may be linked thematically, determinations of appropriateness should be limited to those two distinct neighborhoods. By conducting the analysis on such an area as large as defined by the Midtown Neighborhood Association, Staff would be comparing the site to properties outside of the NCOD and which are not subject to, nor been developed according to, the standards of the NCOD. To do so would be an apples v. oranges comparison, as well a creative way to smuggle inappropriate characteristics of increased height, mass, scale, architectural styles, and other features from areas outside the NCOD and into the NCOD that the Design Guidelines are intended to control and mitigate. Further, there are neighborhood associations within the NCOD boundary that are made up of multiple historic districts. A COA in those circumstances would require analysis for a site plan within a district to be limited to properties within the district only and not to the greater neighborhood association boundaries. Is the review authority suggesting that the County Fairgrounds, skating rinks, and the Bozeman Public Safety Center are really relevant references for determining appropriateness development within the Northeast Neighborhood Association because they lie within the bounds of that association? There is also an inconsistency in Staff’s arguments about the NCOD generally, as well as to its application in this project. On one hand, Staff states there is a conflict with the NCOD as reflected in Staff’s memo to the HPAB at the Sept 12, 2023, special meeting called to, among other issues, approve language to move the boundary of the NCOD. This memo stated that “the NCOD standards and the intentions of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and adopted zoning districts in that area are in conflict. The conflict needs to be resolved.” This is contradicted by Staff’s contention in section 9 of the Staff Report for the project, “while items found in the Bozeman Municipal Code are required standards, the NCOD [D]esign [G]uidelines are not compulsory.” If the Design Guidelines are not compulsory, why bother moving the boundary of the NCOD? Furthermore, there is no actual “conflict” between the NCOD and the MURD. The NCOD contains guidelines that address commercial districts that would apply to those lots within the MURD and would allow for development in keeping with the zoning and the NCOD guidelines, as have other recent developments constructed by the applicant within the NCOD and the B-3 district. Moreover, the NCOD, inclusive of the Design Guidelines, has been enforced, compulsory code in Bozeman since 1991. The mandatory nature of the NCOD Design Guidelines is reflected in the City’s statistics that were provided to the consultants for the 2015 NCOD review by the City showing that no deviations were 100% approved and that height deviations were the most frequently denied type of deviation. Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 4 of 26 There are many different types of overlay districts employed by municipalities all over the country, including historic overlays, airport overlays, flood plain overlays, hillside overlays, neighborhood conservation overlays, conservation overlays, transit-oriented development overlays, pedestrian overlays, sign overlays, redevelopment overlays, wetlands overlays, seismic overlays, and affordable housing overlays. Overlay districts are used to add extra regulations or guidelines to a specific area beyond the standard zoning rules, allowing for targeted management of particular issues within a community. When there is a conflict between standard zoning rules and an overlay district, the overlay district’s regulations govern. This widely accepted principle has even been publicly and explicitly affirmed by Staff.2 The American Planning Association describes overlay zones as: An overlay zone is a zoning district which is applied over one or more previously established zoning districts, establishing additional or stricter standards and criteria for covered properties in addition to those of the underlying zoning district. Communities often use overlay zones to protect special features such as historic buildings, wetlands, steep slopes, and waterfronts. Overlay zones can also be used to promote specific development projects, such as mixed-used developments, waterfront developments, housing along transit corridors, or affordable housing. The Staff report for Application 24493 asserts, “the NCOD Design Guidelines were created in 2006 and have not been updated to reflect all the changes that have occurred in the Bozeman Municipal Code. The NCOD Design Guidelines are not compulsory and, when in conflict with 2 2017 HPAB minutes w Saunders comments Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 5 of 26 the required standards in the BMC, the code controls.” First, it is remarkable that the age of an ordinance such as the NCOD and the Design Guidelines are being used by the review authority to malign its relevance and purpose so as to minimize its effectiveness in carrying out its objectives. Beyond some deferred drafting housekeeping necessary to remove outdated references to the design review board and align terms such as UDO vs UDC and add new zoning definitions such as B-2M and NEHMU as appropriate, the NCOD and the Design Guidelines have performed their intended function quite well and have not required many fundamental updates. Admittedly, the portion of the NCOD pertaining to demolition and the required documentation to demonstrate “no viable economic life remaining” is woefully inadequate, subject to manipulation, and would benefit from an update with more rigorous standards. Second, and most importantly, Sec. 38.110.010(B) adopts by reference the NCOD Design Guidelines. The NCOD Design Guidelines are part and parcel of the code and staff’s attempt to divorce them from the UDC as conflicted and noncompulsory is invalid. Moreover, Sec. 38.100.050(A) states Wherever the requirements of this chapter are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules or regulations, or wherever there is an internal conflict within this chapter, the most restrictive requirements, or those imposing the higher standards, will govern. Therefore, the more restrictive standards of the NCOD and Design Guidelines will govern over those of the base zoning district, R-5. In considering the relevant standards for the COA, the Staff Report for Application 24493 declares: The project adheres to Section 38.340.050, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness…. Nor does [Sec. 38.340.050] subsection B apply since those guidelines are used to consider compatibility with proposed alterations of the original design features. (emphasis added) This assertion is firstly incorrect by misquoting the relevant section of code and replacing words that have key implications on the applicability of the code. Sec. 38.340.050(B) actually states: Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, must focus upon the following…. (emphasis added) By using “of” instead of the UDC’s original “with” and by omitting the clarifying context of “and with neighboring structures and properties,” the unambiguous meaning of the code is completely changed by Staff’s misquote. Sec. 38.340.050(B) clearly instructs the COA to ensure compatibility of alterations with not only the original design features of the subject structure, but also with those of the neighborhood. Furthermore, Sec. 38.700.020 defines “alteration” as: Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 6 of 26 Any act or process, except repair and light construction as defined herein, that changes one or more of the architectural features of a structure or site, including, but not limited to, the erection, construction, reconstruction, relocation of, or addition to a structure…. (emphasis added) Additionally, the Introduction to the Guidelines of the NCOD, Part II: Design Review System, section A, Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, defines “alteration” in nearly identical terms: Any act or process, except repair and light construction that changes one or more of the architectural features of a structure or site, including, but not limited to, the erection, construction, reconstruction, relocation of, or addition to a structure. The Design Guidelines give additional clarifying context with a response to a frequently asked question in that same section: What if I want to demolish, or move, a building on my property? The demolition and movement of structures within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are considered an alteration…. Therefore, in determining if the application adheres to the standards for certificates of appropriateness, Staff errs and does not comply with Sec 38.340.050(B) and consider the appropriateness and compatibility of The Guthrie with neighboring structures and properties, and did not focus upon the following: 1. Height; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 5. Scale; 6. Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical expression of surrounding structures; 7. Architectural details; Additionally, BMC’s description of the required standards for certificates of appropriateness in Section 38.340.050(D) states that “[w]hen reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design for new structures or additions to existing structures, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures” (emphasis added). The City must apply the relevant design guidelines in determining appropriateness. However, because the Director of Community Development mistakenly asserts that the base zoning controls the development standards rather than the NCOD Design Guidelines, the resulting proposed building is more similar in size, mass, and scale to those examples seen in Subchapter 4-B, Guidelines for the B-3 Commercial Character Area. Nowhere in the Staff Report for Application 24493 or in the Staff Report for Appeal 25033 does Staff challenge the Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 7 of 26 appellant’s calculated measurements that demonstrate the clear, obvious, and overwhelming nature of the proposed building’s mass and scale compared to the surrounding neighborhood structures by showing The Guthrie will be up to ten times larger by volume of the larger adjacent neighborhood structures. The same analysis applied to the single-family residences would show The Guthrie to be over twenty times larger by volume. Instead, the Director of Community Development only applies the base zoning R-5 limitations for height and only the possible height of future development of B-2M properties outside of the neighborhood while only “considering” the “applicable portions of the NCOD Guidelines” in determining appropriateness. This is clear error. Moreover, the appellant has not sought for the neighborhood to be static and unchanged as implied by staff. Nor has the appellant opposed the construction of a new contemporary design at the site of the Guthrie. Rather, the appellant has expressed a strong preference for adaptive reuse, believing that is the most environmentally responsible decision and is one that aligns with the intent of the NCOD as well as resulting in the most affordable outcomes for the community while providing relatively the same number of affordable units (42 units with 49 bedrooms for the adaptive reuse vs 46 units with 53 bedrooms for The Guthrie), all while avoiding this community contention and angst. Nor has the neighborhood expressed opposition to the repurposing of the site to be affordable housing. The neighborhood has explicitly welcomed it. The neighborhood has understandably expressed reservation to the applicant’s oral remarks that the property would serve as housing for out-of-town subcontractors because the applicant’s contractors were having difficulty supplying labor for his projects. Combined with 30-day leases and a lack of parking, this potential for a transient population with larger-than-normal parking demand is a reasonable concern. The neighborhood has only expressed a desire that whatever may eventually be constructed at the site, it should comply with the conditions of the NCOD and the Design Guidelines as written. Staff demonstrate throughout the Staff Reports for Application 24493 and for Application 25033 a consistent misunderstanding of the applicability, enforceability, controlling, and mandated nature of the NCOD Design Guidelines. As previously discussed, it is uncontested that the NCOD Design Guidelines are adopted by reference and thus are part of the code, as if they had been reprinted in their entirety within chapter 38. It is also not in question that wherever there is an internal conflict within chapter 38, the most restrictive requirements, or those imposing the higher standards, will govern. For example, when base zoning permits a structure to be 50 feet high but the more restrictive overlay standards limit the height to two stories, the more restrictive requirements govern. It is instructive to review sections of the outline of the Design Guidelines as they are presented, in order to clear up these consistent misunderstandings. The Introduction, Part II: Design Review System, B. Background of Design Guidelines is insightful: What are Design Guidelines? The guidelines convey general policies about the design of alterations to existing structures, additions, new construction and site work. However, they do not dictate Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 8 of 26 solutions. Instead, they define a range of appropriate responses to a variety of specific design issues. (emphasis added) Why have Design Guidelines? The purpose of the guidelines and the review process through which they are administered is to promote preservation of the historic, cultural, and architectural heritage of Bozeman. These resources are fragile and are vulnerable to inappropriate alteration and demolition. Recognizing this concern, Bozeman established these guidelines. One purpose for these guidelines is to inform the community about the design policies the City holds for the overlay district. (emphasis added) They indicate an approach to design that will help provide information that property owners may use to make decisions about their buildings and to maintain their historic character. The guidelines also provide Bozeman a basis for making informed, consistent decisions about design. (emphasis added) The design guidelines provide a basis for making consistent decisions about the treatment of historic resources. They also serve as educational and planning tools for property owners and their design professionals who seek to make improvements that may affect historic resources. While the design guidelines are written for use by the layperson to plan improvements, property owners are strongly encouraged to enlist the assistance of qualified design and planning professionals, including architects and preservation consultants. Known for its ongoing preservation efforts, the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is foreseeing continued investment in the area, including renovation, additions to existing buildings and infill construction. Therefore, a wide range of construction projects are anticipated and the pressure on the historic district's integrity is increased, as is the need for guidelines. Part II: Design Review System, F. Components of Design Guidelines provides the components of the guidelines and the hierarchy of how they work together and should be applied: Each chapter of the design guidelines contains the following components: Design Element The first is the design element category (e.g., streetscape elements, site planning, building materials and secondary structures) under which the design guideline falls. Policy Statement Second is a policy statement explaining the Bozeman Department of Planning’s basic approach to treatment of the design element. This statement provides the basis for the more detailed design guidelines that follow underneath. In cases where special conditions in a specific project are such that the detailed design guidelines do not Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 9 of 26 appear to address the situation, this general policy statement shall serve as the basis for determining the appropriateness of the proposed work. (emphasis added) Policy statements are shown as large typeface statements. Design Guidelines Third is the design guideline statement itself, which is typically performance-oriented, describing a desired design treatment. The specific design guidelines are numbered and presented in bold face statements under each policy statement. Additional Information The design guideline statement is followed by supplementary information that is treated as sub-points of the guideline. These sub-points may include additional requirements, or may provide an expanded explanation. These sub-points are listed as bulleted (•) statements. Illustrations Design guidelines are further explained through the use of photographs and illustrations. Examples given should not be considered the only appropriate options, but rather used as a guiding reference. In most instances, there are numerous possible solutions that meet the intention of the design guidelines, as well as the needs of the property owner. In order to help the reader determine design approaches that are appropriate, many of the illustrations are marked with either a ✓ _or an ✘. Those illustrations marked with a ✓ _are considered appropriate solutions to the design issue, whereas those illustrations marked with an ✘ _are not appropriate. Rather, Staff’s misinterpretation about the compulsory nature of the Design Guidelines as stated in the Staff Report for Application 25033, derives from the usage of the word “guideline” rather than Staff’s preferred words “standards” or “criteria” and because the guidelines offer flexibility. Indeed, there is flexibility in the application of the guidelines because as Sec. 38.340.010(D) states: In view of the fact that most of the area included within the boundaries of the conservation district was developed and built out prior to the adoption of zoning and contemporary subdivision regulations, the construction, development pattern and range of uses is highly diverse and may not be in compliance with conventional regulatory requirements. This part 1 [NCOD and historic preservation] recognizes that this diversity is a contributing element of the historic character of these neighborhoods or areas. The provisions of this part 1 [NCOD and historic preservation] must be applied in a manner that will encourage the protection and enhancement of the many diverse features for future generations. However, this flexibility that the Director of Community Development wishes to use to selectively apply which Design Guidelines can be followed and which can be only “considered” and then discarded at the Director of Community Development’s discretion, is actually intended to be applied to those properties that were built in the NCOD prior to the adoption of zoning and conventional regulations. The BMC asserts that those “diverse” properties are vital elements of Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 10 of 26 the NCOD, worthy of preservation, and therefore must be afforded some flexibility in applying the Design Guidelines. That is, because it may not be possible to meet the letter of the law, the Design Guidelines should allow the project to meet the spirit. Drafters of the NCOD Design Guidelines wisely and intentionally built flexibility into the code, recognizing that so much desirable historical development is worthy of preservation, and could never align with modern constraints, and in doing so allowed for this flexibility in meeting the modern standards. In no case, however, does the Design Guidelines allow for the policy statement to be excluded from compliance. As the aforementioned Components of Design Guidelines defined the policy statement, [i]n cases where special conditions in a specific project are such that the detailed design guidelines do not appear to address the situation, this general policy statement shall serve as the basis for determining the appropriateness of the proposed work. (emphasis added) Moreover, wherever a chapter of the Design Guidelines is determined to apply to a project for determining appropriateness, all of the Design Guidelines apply, inclusive of the design elements, policy statements, and underlying design guidelines of each chapter. Neither the NCOD nor the Design Guidelines affords a review authority or Staff discretion as to which Design Guidelines should be “considered” or that there be “substantial compliance” or that an application “include(ed) many of the NCOD Guidelines,” or that the review authority may “interpret” which Design Guidelines within a chapter are appropriate for a particular project, all of which are asserted in the Staff Report for Application 25033. Nowhere in the NCOD Design Guidelines nor in Sec. 38.340.010-130 is the term “discretion” used. Nor is “consider” used as implied by the example in the Staff Report for Application 25033 “To maintain the character of a historic building, design elements such as form, mass and materials should be considered in any alteration.” The actual context for that quote gives a much different meaning than what the report implies by emphasizing the word “considered.” A primary design goal for Bozeman is to preserve the integrity of its individual historic structures and the character of its streetscapes in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. To maintain the character of a historic building, design elements such as form, mass and materials should be considered in any alteration. The relationship each building has with other neighborhood design elements is also important, as well as the hierarchy of site elements, such as street trees, front yards, walkways and accessory structures. Further misunderstanding on Staff’s part regarding the compulsory nature of the NCOD Design Guidelines likely derives from the common collegiate dictionary definition of the word “should” because it is used extensively throughout the Design Guidelines. The dictionary defines “should” as: The word "should" is understood to have an advisory meaning and does not place an obligation. It suggests a course of action is desirable or advisable, but the party to whom the advice is given has the option of not following it. “Should” contrasts with “shall,” which is used to indicate a mandatory obligation or requirement. When a legal document uses "shall," it signifies that the action must be taken, and there is no room for discretion. Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 11 of 26 By construing the term “should” in this manner, Staff would not be applying the word as it is clearly defined in Appendix B of the Design Guidelines. As a point of reference, the Appendix is an applicable chapter to use in all types of work as indicated in the table on page 13 of the Design Guidelines. Appendix B (Interpretation of Terms) defines “should” as: Should. If the term “should” appears in a design guideline, compliance is required. (emphasis added) In cases where specific circumstances of a project make it impractical to do so, the City may determine that compliance is not required if the applicant demonstrates how the related policy statement still will be met. Additional useful defined terms from Appendix B for interpreting the language of the guidelines include, but aren’t limited to: Consider. When the term “consider” is used, a design suggestion is offered to the reader as an example of one method of how the design guideline at hand could be met. Applicants may elect to follow the suggestion, but may also seek alternative means of meeting it. In other cases, the reader is instructed to evaluate the ability to take the course recommended in the context of the specific project. Context. In many cases, the reader is instructed to relate to the context of the project area. The “context” relates to those properties and structures adjacent to, and within the same block as, the proposed project. Primary facade. The primary facade is the principal elevation of a building, usually facing the street or other public way. Traditional. Based on or established by the history of the area. Both Staff and the Appellant agree that the appropriate chapters of the NCOD Design Guidelines that must be applied in determining appropriateness according to the matrix found on page 13 of the guidelines are: the Introduction, Chapter 2 Design Guidelines for All Properties, Chapter 3 Guidelines for Residential Character Areas, and the Appendix. Therefore, the related policy statements to be met by the Guthrie from Chapter 3, Guidelines For Residential Character Areas, include but are not limited to: Design Guideline B. Building Mass and Scale o Policy: The mass and scale of a building is also an important design issue in a residential character area. The traditional scale of single household houses dominates the neighborhood, and this similarity of scale also enhances the pedestrian-friendly character of many streets. Similarities in scale among prominent building features, such as porches and fences, are also important. In many cases, earlier buildings were smaller than current tastes support; nonetheless, a new building should, to the greatest extent possible, maintain this established scale. While new buildings and additions are anticipated that may be larger than many of the earlier structures, this new construction should not be so Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 12 of 26 dramatically greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised. (emphasis added) Guidelines to achieve this policy include: 1. Construct a new building to be similar in mass and scale to those single household residences seen traditionally. 2. On larger structures, step down a building’s height toward the street, neighboring structures and the rear of the lot. 4. The front wall of a new structure should not exceed two stories in height. 5. A façade should appear similar in dimension to those seen traditionally in the neighborhood. Typically, a residential building front ranges from 14-30 feet in width. Additional widths were accomplished with a setback or change in building plane. Design Guideline E. Multi-household o Policy: The underlying goal of the guidelines in this section in regards to multi- household construction is that, to the greatest extent feasible, the buildings should be compatible with the context of the neighborhood. (emphasis added) Historic structures associated with the multi-household projects should be retained when feasible. (emphasis added) o The guidelines in other sections of this chapter also apply to multi-household buildings. (emphasis added) Guidelines to achieve this policy include: 1. Retaining an existing single household building that contributes to the established character of the neighborhood in a multi-household project is encouraged. o When proposing a new design for a multi-household structure that must replace an existing building, however, also continue the rhythm that is established by the even spacing of building fronts along the street. 2. Minimize the perceive [sic] scale of a multi-household building. 4. A new multi-household building should be within the range of heights seen traditionally in the neighborhood. (emphasis added) o A new multi-household structure should not overwhelm existing single household structures, in terms of height.” o Maintaining a consistency of building height will contribute to the visual continuity of the streetscape.” 5. A primary building face should not exceed the width of a typical single household building in a similar context (see illustrations). o Develop a large lot with several buildings, rather than one large single structure, when feasible. Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 13 of 26 o When a building is parallel to the street, on a lot parallel to the street, the typical range of front facade widths is 40 to 75 feet. Note that this is more typical of corner lots. Additionally, the related policy statements to be met by The Guthrie from Chapter 2, Design Guidelines For All Properties, include but are not limited to: Design Guideline E. Landscape Design o Policy: Traditionally, plant beds were located around building foundations, along walkways and sometimes in front of fences. (emphasis added) Some of these plantings may have historic significance and should be retained, to the extent feasible. Some mature trees may also contribute to the historic landscape and should be preserved. (emphasis added) Guidelines to achieve this policy include: 1. Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant vegetation within all corridors. o Include existing vegetation as a part of a landscape design scheme where appropriate. o In development areas, healthy trees and vegetation clusters should be identified for preservation. (emphasis added) Special consideration should be given to mature trees, 6” or greater in diameter, and to vegetation clusters with significant visual impact. (emphasis added) Vegetation designated for preservation should be incorporated into new development site design to the maximum extent possible. (emphasis added) Design Guideline J. Parking o Policy: The visual impact of surface parking should be minimized. On site parking should be subordinate to other uses and the front of the lot should not appear to be a parking area. (emphasis added) Guidelines to achieve this policy include: 1. Minimize the visual impact of surface parking in residential neighborhoods. o A parking area should be located to the rear of a site. (emphasis added) o Do not use a front yard for parking. Instead, use a long driveway, or alley access, that leads to parking located behind a building. o Consider using ribbon paving in residential neighborhoods to minimize the amount of hard surface paving. (emphasis added) Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 14 of 26 Design Guideline K. Buffers o Policy: When site development such as parking, storage and equipment areas create an unavoidable negative visual impact on abutting properties or to the public way, it should be mitigated with landscaping that may buffer or screen it. The landscape design should complement the existing natural character and context of the site. (emphasis added) Note that these guidelines supplement the city standards in Title 18, BMC, that define the minimum amounts of land area to be landscaped and of plant units to be used. Guidelines to achieve this policy include: 1. Landscape buffers should be provided along edges of parking and service areas. o Provide a landscape buffer at the edge of a parking lot and between parking lots. o In some cases, it may be desirable to provide a landscape buffer between a recreation trail and/or open space. These should complement the natural character of the site. (emphasis added) o Finally, it may be desirable to provide an evergreen landscape buffer at ground mounted mechanical equipment, service and/or storage areas. Design Guideline M. Utilities and Service Areas o Policy: Service areas should be visually unobtrusive and should be integrated with the design of the site and the building. (emphasis added) Guidelines to achieve this policy include: 1. Orient service entrances, waste disposal areas and other similar uses toward service lanes and away from major streets. (emphasis added) o Screen service entrances with walls, fences or plantings. o When it will be visible from a public way, a service area screen should be in character with the building and site it serves. (emphasis added) o Locate areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction loading, or other such uses so as not to be visible from abutting streets. (emphasis added) 2. Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses. o Minimize noise impacts by locating sources of offensive sounds away from other uses. o Use an alley system to locate service areas, when feasible. Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 15 of 26 It can be easily seen from the preceding Design Guidelines that the Guthrie does not meet most of them. It is deficient in complying with the prescribed policies pertaining to mass and scale; compatibility with the context of the neighborhood; landscape design, particularly the preservation of mature trees; parking and associated buffers; and the position, design, and orientation of service areas. In fact, as it relates to the Certificate of Appropriateness standards and the application of the NCOD Design Guidelines, the applicant and Staff appear to interpret the guidelines to fit the proposed building’s design rather than have the design modified to conform with the Design Guidelines, using such terms as “not feasible” or “not applicable” when they clearly are. Because Staff errs in applying the correct standards from Sec 38.340.050 and misapplies the NCOD Design Guidelines, and most importantly because application 24493 does not meet those standards or Design Guidelines, it does not warrant the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, and the application should be denied. Clearly, the proposed building is too large, intense, incompatible, and overwhelming for the site and neighborhood, and its design is not in keeping with the NCOD Design Guidelines. Though the R-5 base zoning allows buildings to be built to a height of 50 feet, the more restrictive NCOD Design Guidelines supersede and limit the height to two stories in Residential Character Areas. Staff instead wants to permit the height, mass, and scale allowed for the base zoning and apply only these limits as the appropriate standards and ignore the limitations that are mandated by the NCOD. The Director of Community Development bemoans in Staff Report for Application 25033 that “even the multi-household guidelines tend to reflect expected construction of a multi-household structure on a lot previously occupied by a single household dwelling, which makes even the most relevant guidance contained in the NCOD Guidelines ill- suited for the present situation.” A more reasonable conclusion to draw from the restrictions of the NCOD Design Guidelines is that multi-family dwellings are intentionally limited, by design, to be compatible in height, mass, and scale with a residential neighborhood, as evidenced by the many two-story apartment buildings located throughout the NCOD. It is illegal for Staff to perform a legislative act by taking a position that the Design Guidelines of the NCOD are not compulsory and therefore invalidate the enforceability of the NCOD. Until the City Commission, as Bozeman’s legislative body, revokes the NCOD and the Design Guidelines or a court intervenes and rules the NCOD guidelines to be unconstitutional, staff must perform its administrative role and apply the NCOD as written, administered, and enforced for the previous 34 years. It wasn’t until the current UDC rewrite effort began in the fall of 2023, after the applicant purchased the property, that the city tried to gather support for and recommended draft language that the boundary of the NCOD be moved from 7th Avenue to 5th Avenue. It should be noted that this effort to move the boundary is in direct contradiction with the recommendations from two different consulting reports that the city has contracted in the past ten years. In 2015, the city paid KLJ Architects $65,000 for a comprehensive review of the NCOD and to make recommendations pertaining to its use. Their recommendation for initial changes to the boundary was: Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 16 of 26 After speaking with the North Seventh Urban Renewal Board and City staff from the economic development department, the eastern [sic] NCOD boundary along North 7th Avenue should be scaled back to exempt properties fronting North 7th Avenue to ease redevelopment of this arterial. The corridor has few, if any, contributing structures to a potential historic district. The new boundary should be along North 6th Avenue from Peach Street to Mendenhall Street with two exceptions moving the boundary to 5th Avenue: 1. 5th Avenue from Mendenhall Street to Main Street 2. 5th Avenue from Peach Street to Short Street In 2019, the City paid BendonAdams and Orion Planning & Design $66,525 for another comprehensive review of the NCOD and new recommendations. Their recommendation for adjustments to the boundary of the NCOD was: The North 7th Street corridor should be either all in, or all out, of the NCOD. Bozeman City Commission directed North 7th Street to be all out of the NOCD. Regardless of the NCOD, both sides of the street should have the same design regulations. Historic eligibility of mid-century buildings along the North 7th Street corridor has been raised by some community members. However, this is not a reason to include North 7th Street in the NCOD - the primary purpose of the revised NCOD is not to protect historic buildings, but rather to protect neighborhood character (emphasis in original). The implementation of a historic preservation program that extends beyond the boundary of the NCOD would provide protection for eligible buildings if requested by the property owner and approved by the Bozeman Commission. In both cases, the consultants recommended moving the boundary of the NCOD to remove only those B-2M zoned properties along 7th within the MURD from the NCOD. Additionally, in 2016, the site of the proposed Guthrie was rezoned from Residential R-3 to R-5. Of the approximately 41 parcels assigned R-5 zoning in the city, the majority are (or were) large, undeveloped lots far removed from the downtown core and the MURD. Only six parcels were rezoned R-5 within the NCOD. Although the City was aware at that time of the rezoning that properties zoned B-2M along 7th Avenue within the MURD could have “conflicts” with the NCOD Design Guidelines including permitted height, mass, and scale, the City therefore knew or should have known that the increased height limits of the R-5 designation would create “conflicts” because buildings of the maximum allowed height would not be permitted for the subject property and the other five lots zoned R-5 within the NCOD due to the restrictions imposed by the NCOD Design Guidelines, which protect the residential neighborhood character. At the same time the City created the Residential R-5 zoning, it could have changed the boundaries of the NCOD to allow for the construction of a 50-foot-tall building on the subject property if that was their intent. Because the City did not, and because there are other R-5 lots abutting the Midtown Urban Renewal District outside of the NCOD that can construct 50-foot-tall buildings, it can only be assumed that the City’s intent was for developments within the NCOD to take advantage of other amended characteristics afforded by R-5 zoning such as allowing for different permitted Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 17 of 26 uses including commercial, reduced lot coverage requirements, reduced minimum lot areas, or reduced minimum lot widths. The City had another opportunity to address this perceived “conflict” for the R-5 zoning after the new consultants, BendonAdams, raised awareness again in 2019 and provided the same recommendation for the B-2M lots in the MURD. Again, the City did nothing. If the City is bound and determined to have a 50-foot-tall building constructed on this particular site for whatever reason, the most appropriate remedy would be to rezone the property to B-2M or some other commercial designation. This would permit construction of a development similar to Application No. 21326, aka the Wildlands, which is located in the NCOD, within the boundary of the North East Neighborhood Association and is zoned NEHMU. When HomeBase purchased the subject property in 2022, they were aware of its location within the NCOD. As a professional developer of several large-scale commercial and multifamily properties within Bozeman, with at least a dozen of them within the NCOD, the applicant knew and should have been intimately familiar with the constraints and limitations of development restrictions imposed by the NCOD and the Design Guidelines. Of the dozen commercial and multifamily developments that the applicant has previously built within the NCOD boundaries, it should be noted that they all were within the B-3 zoning district. The site of The Guthrie is their first effort to develop a Residential-zoned property within the NCOD. Further, the neighborhood argues that any attempt to move the boundary unilaterally beyond what is necessary to remove the lots within the MURD from the NCOD, and in alignment with the consultant’s recommendations, would result in spot zoning and an illegal taking from the neighbors who have purchased property in the neighborhood since the 2016 rezoning to R-5 and who thus rely on the protections that the NCOD provides by prohibiting the large, intense development that any unrestricted R-5 zoning would allow. Moreover, the 2022 historic inventory surveys that the City engaged Metcalf Archaeological Consultants to conduct over the previous 2 years made this management recommendation in its final report: The Violett Addition may also be a candidate for district potential, as the small, cohesive neighborhood has associations with the Postwar phase of Bozeman’s development, a time period not strongly reflected in existing NRHP listings in the City. Eighty-one percent of the properties recorded within this Addition retain sufficient integrity and, while the area was not entirely recorded as part of the survey, that number indicates the surrounding properties likely also retain integrity. It is recommended that further study of the Violett Addition also consider inclusion of contemporaneous developments in adjacent subdivisions (e.g., Karp Addition), as they may be linked thematically. As a final observation, in the Introduction to the Guidelines of the NCOD, Part II: Design Review System, section C. Determining Compliance with the Guidelines, it states: A project may fall into a special review category because of its size or design complexity. In this case the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) and/or the Design Review Board (DRB) may be consulted to advise City Staff on the appropriateness of the project design. Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 18 of 26 Although this section clearly indicates that consultation with the HPAB is optional, given the size of the proposed project and the widespread community opposition, coupled with the consistent misunderstanding and application of the NCOD Design Guidelines, in hindsight it seems apparent that Staff should have consulted with the HPAB, as the City’s specialized board focused on the historic preservation of our city, using their expertise to advise staff on the appropriateness of the design. The application does not meet design criterion standards of 38.230.100.A.7 by misapplying the standards of Sec. 38.520.060 The Staff Report indicates Sec. 38.520.060 required HomeBase to provide 9,750 square feet of open space. HomeBase purportedly provided 9,798 square feet of open space and purportedly complies with this provision of code, as well as the site plan review criteria. The Site Plan improperly uses bicycle parking space in its open-space calculation to meet open- space requirements. The Site Plan includes a three-bicycle parking area on the northeast corner of the property at 5th Avenue and West Villard Street, and a fourteen-bicycle parking area in the common area on the southern, interior side of the Guthrie to meet open-space requirements. These areas do not meet Sec. 38.520.060.B.2.d, which states: “shared open space must feature paths or walkable lawns, landscaping, seating, lighting, and play structures, sports courts, or other pedestrian amenities to make the area more functional and enjoyable for a range of users” (emphasis added). As noted in the Staff Report for Application 25033, “appellant’s argument hinges on whether a bicycle is a “vehicle” such that it is included in the definition of a “parking area”. MCA 61-8- 102(2)(b) [Traffic Regulation] defines “bicycle” as “a vehicle propelled solely by human power on which any person may ride, irrespective of the number of wheels, except scooters, wheelchairs, and similar devices. The term includes an electrically assisted bicycle.” (emphasis added) Pursuant to Sec. 38.700.150, the area with bicycle parking is not open space nor a pedestrian amenity, but a parking area. See Sec. 38.700.150 (a parking area is “an area, other than a street or alley designated for use, or used, for temporary parking of vehicles”). Bike racks are for storing and parking bicycles, and just like auto parking lots, they do not count toward open space requirements. Further support is found in Sec. 38.220.080.A.2.h, which requires a “detailed plan of all parking facilities, including circulation aisles, access drives, bicycle racks, compact spaces, handicapped spaces and motorcycle parking, on-street parking, number of employee and nonemployee parking spaces, existing and proposed, and total square footage of each” (emphasis added). Additionally, Staff discusses mandatory bicycle parking within the report where it considers all parking-related issues, “7d. Conformance with Article 5 - Parking (38.540),” which is further evidence that the bicycle racks are parking facilities and not pedestrian amenities. Lastly, additional context on how the City views bike parking as an equivalent to automobile parking can be taken from Development Review Manager Brian Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 19 of 26 Krueger’s testimony to Deputy Mayor Morrison, where he discusses how the applicant could put bike racks into an automobile parking spot to provide additional parking much like the City does downtown seasonally when they roll out bike racks and place them in automobile parking spots. Upon removing the bicycle racks fourteen-bicycle parking area from consideration of the open space calculations, the application also fails to meet the Sec. 38.520.060.B.2(c); “[s]hared open space must feature no dimension less than 15 feet in order to provide functional leisure or recreational activity.” The application does not meet criterion set forth in Sec. 38.230.100.A.6.a(1) by misapplying Sec. 38.400.060 For reference and clarity, the entirety of Sec. 38.400.060 specifies: 4. Level of service standards. All arterial and collector streets and intersections with arterial and collector streets must operate at a minimum level of service "C" unless specifically exempted by this section. The city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The review authority may approve a development only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which must be a minimum of 15 years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections must have a minimum acceptable LOS of "C" for the intersection as a whole. (emphasis added) a. Exception: If an intersection within the area required to be studied by section 38.220.060.A.12 does not meet LOS "C" and the intersection has been fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity, then an LOS of less than "C" is acceptable. b. Exception: The review authority may grant a waiver from an LOS of less than "C" at a specific intersection if the review authority determines: (1) Granting a waiver for the intersection would not be contrary to public health and safety and is in the public interest; (2) Improvements to the intersection to raise the overall level of service to a "C" or better are currently scheduled for commencement of construction within three years as shown on the most recently adopted Transportation Capital Improvement Plan; (3) All rights-of-way necessary for the required intersection improvements have been obtained by the city or by the Montana Department of Transportation; and (4) The commission has approved a financing plan for the intersection improvements. Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 20 of 26 A waiver granted under this subsection is valid for the initial entitlement period of the project and applies only to the real property for which the waiver is granted. A request for the extension of the initial development approval relying upon an intersection level of service waiver is a material modification to the application per 38.100.070. c. If the review authority does not grant a waiver from the level of service standard under this subsection B.4, a subdivider or other site developer may request a variance from the requirements of this section. If a variance is granted from the requirements of this section, the variance applies only to the specific development proposal for which it was granted and must not be considered evidence for any other development proposal. The Staff Report for Application24493 in section 6a states “[t]he only location where the overall intersection LOS does not meet the requirements of this section of the BMC is the intersection of N 7th Avenue and Peach Street…. The TIS demonstrated that every other intersection as a whole would remain at or better than LOS “C,” and therefore the requirement of the BMC is met. Of note, the TIS stated that drivers on certain local streets, including West Villard and West Beal, could expect slightly increased delays where those local streets intersect with North 7th Avenue. Although these specific approaches to the intersections were determined to operate at a LOS “D,” the intersections as a whole maintain their LOS “C” rating. Again, these intersections therefore meet the requirement of the BMC which is that the intersection as a whole operate at LOS “C” or better.” Indeed, at the July 9, 2024, City Commission review of the Guthrie’s original application, No. 23354, Staff testified that when calculating LOS for an intersection “as a whole,” Bozeman averages all legs for all intersection control types and always has. This method is contrary to the method specified by Sec. 38.400.060(4) which requires “using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.” (emphasis added) The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for vehicles methodology for determining an intersection’s LOS first requires calculating LOS for each minor-street movement (or shared movement), major-street left turns at two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections, and for all movements at signalized and all-way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections. LOS for both AWSC and at all signalized intersections is an average of all the legs’ LOS, which aligns with the “as a whole” averaging that the city currently applies. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections, however, are different from the criteria used in signalized intersections. At both TWSC and T- type intersections, drivers on the stop-controlled approaches need to find a break in the traffic to cross a lane or make a turn. When drivers on the stop-controlled approach are waiting in a traffic queue, this results in additional delay. Assigning a LOS based on the average of all legs is specifically cautioned against by the HCM because the LOS for the unimpeded through-legs will overwhelm the service levels of the stop-controlled legs and skew the results. Instead, they assign LOS for the intersection based on the LOS of worst performing leg of the minor legs. Therefore, by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, the intersections of 7th Avenue / Villard Street and 7th Avenue / Beall Street currently Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 21 of 26 operate at a LOS D and will operate at a LOS F in the design year, 2038, not at a LOS C as asserted by the staff report. Had the review authority correctly established that the LOS requirements are not met in the design year for all intersections with arterial and collector streets, the review authority could have then determined if those intersections were specifically exempted by the one of the three exceptions specified by the Sec. 38.400.060(4). The Staff Report for Application 24493 makes no determination or mentions no such consideration, again because they’ve already asserted that the intersections meet the required LOS C. Exception (a) would not apply because the intersection has not been fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity. The TIS suggests several options that would construct the intersection to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity: “[t]he installation of a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) on North 7th Avenue would have a larger improvement in delay by permitting two-staged left-turns from the minor legs;” “restrictions to West Villard Street and West Beall Street minor legs could also be considered in the future to improve minor leg operations.” The City’s own Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue Corridor, created contemporaneously with the North Seventh Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, contemplate many improvements that need to be made to improve 7th Avenue: “These alternative street sections are also directly related to slowing traffic to 20 MPH, roundabouts to increase traffic flow and conversion of North 7th to its primary purpose of being a mixed-use neighborhood that includes retail, office and residentail [sic] uses with emphasis on pedestrian safety and convenience to all community members. To achieve these street sections will require negotiations with the Montana Department of Transportation. The proposed combination will result in an effective integration of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic.” Although the Staff Report does discuss traffic signal warrant analysis and turn restrictions, summarizing why these were not recommended, it was not done in context with the application of Exception (a), but rather in response to public comments. Moreover, their analysis does not contemplate all possible options that could build the intersections to their full capacity. Exception (b) would not apply because no improvements to the intersections to raise the overall level of service to a "C" or better are currently scheduled for commencement of construction within 3 years as shown on the most recently adopted Transportation Capital Improvement Plan. Exception (c) would not apply because a variance was not requested nor granted. Staff and the review authority again relied on their assertion that the intersections already meet the required LOS. In the Staff Report for this appeal, Application No. 25033, the Director clearly misunderstands the reasoning for the applicant’s reference to the denial of the zone map amendment application 22189, at Haggerty and Main. This denial serves to illustrate that the City is capable of calculating the LOS per HCM standards and then applying the LOS minimums per BMC. For that application, Staff used the intersection capacity report from the Bozeman Transportation Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 22 of 26 Master Plan, which correctly assigns an LOS F based on the HCM standards. Staff did not calculate LOS for the intersection “as a whole” as asserted in public testimony to the Commission. Had Staff done so, the unimpeded legs along Main Street and their corresponding LOS A would have resulted in a LOS C or better for the intersection “as a whole” and allowed for the zone map amendment to proceed. Instead, Staff used the HCM-calculation method and used that lower LOS as the primary basis for denying the zone map amendment. Additionally, Application 16530, master site plan for Blackmore Bend, which sits on Main Street between Highland Boulevard and Haggerty Lane, was approved and construction was permitted without mitigating the same Haggerty and Main intersection which abuts the subdivision. Its TIS portrays the LOS for the Haggerty and Main intersection “as a whole” as an A. Subsequent to that subdivision initial development and the denial of the zone map amendment 22189, Application 23060, the TruNorth site plan within the Blackmore Bend subdivision has been submitted, relying upon the same 2016 TIS showing Haggerty and Main as LOS A “as a whole.” These various applications of LOS calculations and standards are inconsistent, arbitrary, and capricious. The UDC provides no method for calculating LOS “as a whole.” Instead, it is much more likely that the term “as a whole” meant to clarify that for signalized intersections and four-way stop intersections, one or two failing legs could not require mitigation if the intersection’s overall LOS, “as a whole”, met Bozeman’s minimum standard. Had the intent been to average all legs in all cases the code would have said so. But to jump from that single clarifying sentence to an interpretation and application that is contrary to the standards and guidance from the City’s mandated reference’s methodology is irrational and is in direct violation of the code. Specifically, the declarative statement, “the city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual,” controls the methodology to be used in calculating LOS. “As a whole” cannot be interpreted in such a convoluted manner in order to apply a method for calculating a quantitative measure such as LOS. City Staff’s assertion that this “as a whole” averaging method is and always has been Bozeman’s method for calculating LOS is demonstrably false by examining the City’s own guidelines. Sec. 38.110.010(G) adopts by reference the Bozeman Long Range Transportation Plan. Both the “Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)” and the “Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum” for the 2017 Transportation Master Plan specify a method for how the LOS should be calculated for unsignalized intersections: Level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the delay experienced by each movement within the intersection, rather than on the overall stopped delay per vehicle at the intersection. This difference from the method used for signalized intersections is necessary since the operating characteristics of a stop-controlled intersection are substantially different. Driver expectations and perceptions are also entirely different. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the through traffic on the major (uncontrolled) street experiences no delay at the intersection. Conversely, vehicles turning left from the minor street experience more delay than other movements and at times can experience significant delay. Vehicles on the minor street, which are turning right or going across the major street, experience less delay than those turning left from Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 23 of 26 the same approach. Due to this situation, the LOS assigned to a two-way stop-controlled intersection is based on the average delay for vehicles on the minor street approach (emphasis added). Although this method contradicts the HCM’s method of assigning LOS for the intersection based on the worst minor leg LOS, it is much closer to the required standard than the novel “as a whole” averaging, and avoids the pitfall of allowing the unimpeded leg to skew the result. And again, Sec. 38.100.050(A) gives guidance on how to address this conflict, stating: Wherever the requirements of this chapter are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules or regulations, or wherever there is an internal conflict within this chapter, the most restrictive requirements, or those imposing the higher standards, will govern. Therefore, the HCM methodology governs over the undefined and more permissive “as a whole” averaging method and even the method specified by the Transportation Master Plan. Sampling historical Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in Bozeman’s online Laserfiche repository shows that these TISs have been crafted by using various methodologies and used subjectively and inconsistently. Attached to this comment letter are extracts from the sampled TIS reports that illustrate the issues identified. The naming convention for these reports prefaces each project name with the year and month the TIS was written and the name of the engineering firm that prepared the report. In some cases, the TIS asserts the wrong standard of LOS for Bozeman and that otherwise failing intersections meet code. 3 Confoundingly, some TISs have unfailingly applied the same method recommended by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and which is specified by the BMC4, while others make use of the “as a whole” averaging to their clients’ advantage. Some TISs have alternated between the method specified by the Transportation Master Plan and the “as a whole” averaging with no obvious pattern. 5 There is historical record of Staff’s recommendation to enforce the mitigation requirement for an intersection with a LOS worse than C for a TWSC intersection which did not employ the “as a whole” averaging method. 6 (N.B. The Commission overruled the Staff’s recommendation and approved the development, Bozeman Brewery, because they did not think it was fair for the developer to have to improve the intersection. This 3 See 201501 Morrison Maierle Lakes at Valley West 4 See 201501 Morrison Maierle Lakes at Valley West, 201606 Morrison Maierle Bozeman Sports Park, 201702 Morrison Maierle - Bozeman West Apartments, 201806 Morrison Maierle Park Place Industrial Park_TIS, 200610 Abelin Traffic Svcs Story Mill Development Traffic 2006, 202205 Abelin Traffic Svcs West Park Neighborhood, 202309 Abelin Traffic Svcs Fowler S ResidenƟal, 202401 E5 Engineering Bozeman Apartments, 5 See 201712 SandersonStewart West Winds SW Subdivision, 201804 SandersonStewart - Bozeman Health New ICU Tower & OR FaciliƟes, 201807 SandersonStewart Bozeman Health Medical Office Development (West Bozeman ASC)-2, 201901 SandersonStewart CoƩonwood & Ida, 202405 SandersonStewart 7th & Aspen, 200412 Marvin & Assoc Arts at City Center TIS, 201811 Marvin & Assoc Winco (GallaƟn Center Lot 12) 6 200804 Bozeman Brewery staff report denial Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 24 of 26 led to the City reducing the radius of the area to be studied for a TIS from 1 mile to 0.5 miles through a later legislative action.) The first usage of the “as a whole” averaging appears to have begun in 2016. 7 Note that in the TIS for The Guthrie, the table summarizing capacity calculations for existing conditions such as found on page 39 and the same table for future (2038) conditions on page 77 are both manually produced tables and not the output of the HCM compliant software, PTV Vistro. The City should instead refer to the intersection capacity reports generated by the PTV Vistro software for purposes of determining LOS.8 It appears that the “as a whole” averaging may be a weighted average of some sort, although it is difficult to say with certainty because a methodology isn’t defined in the BMC nor any of its adopted references or standards. No additional reports or calculations can be found within Staff reports about the developments associated with these inconsistent TIS reports that could provide further insight. Indeed, if the “as a whole” averaging methodology were actually widely used, Bozeman would almost never improve TWSC intersections because the unimpeded legs and their inherent LOS of A would nearly always result in a LOS of C for the intersection “as a whole.” However, examining the record of our transportation plans shows that there are several TWSC intersections that 1) were assigned a failing LOS and, 2) have subsequently been improved either through a roundabout, signal, or installation of other mitigation methods such as dedicated turn lanes or two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL). 9 Had these intersections been averaged by using “as a whole” averaging, most of them most certainly would not have been mitigated. It is evident from a cursory examination of the historical record that the use of “as a whole” averaging method is a recent development. The brief review also shows that the correct method of calculating LOS for TWSC intersections has been applied at least since 2000 and is correctly applied to this day by many traffic engineering firms. Staff’s assertion that an application of an unknown, unspecified averaging methodology that isn’t recognized and, in fact is cautioned against by our code’s mandated industry reference (i.e., the HCM) is clearly a misstatement and contradicted by the evidence. Had the correct standards and logic been applied to another recently approved development on MDT-controlled 7th Avenue, application # 24191 aka 7th & Aspen, it most certainly would not have been approved due to its unmitigated, failing intersection.10 Ironically, for 7th & Aspen proposed future mitigation by the TIS includes a signal at the failing intersection which is one block from an existing signal at 7th Avenue and Tamarac Street, while the signal warrant analysis for the Guthrie dismisses the possibility of a signal at failing intersections due to MDT’s desire to have signals at a minimum ¼ mile spacing. Therefore, the assertion in the Staff Report that the intersections of Villard St & N 7th Avenue and Beall St & N 7th Avenue will operate at a LOS C is plainly incorrect. Further, when comparing the staff reports for both versions of the Guthrie, 23354 and 24493, Sections 6a., 7 See 201608 KLJ East Main & 201611 Marvin & Assoc Black Olive 8 Guthrie TIS Beall & Villard tables 9 See 1991 Traffic intersecƟon condiƟons, 2007 TransportaƟon Master Plan Failing IntersecƟons, 2017 TransportaƟon Master Plan Technical Memo failing intersecƟons 10 202405 SandersonStewart 7th & Aspen Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 25 of 26 which reference the TIS and LOS, Appellants find that first four paragraphs of both versions are nearly identical, with only minor typographical edits and an update to the trip counts in the latest version.11 Both reports state: Although these specific approaches to the intersections were determined to operate at a LOS “D,” the intersections as a whole maintain their LOS “C” rating. Again, these intersections therefore meet the requirement of the BMC which is that the intersection as a whole operate at LOS “C” or better. The fact that these paragraphs are virtually identical indicates that the updated TIS was only used by the review authority to revise the trip count data in the staff report. In particular, the City’s engineering staff comments to the applicant in Application 24493 were not considered by the review authority and directly contradict the treatment of intersections’ LOS as stated in the staff report.12 Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.400.060.B.4. Level of Service Standards (LOS)- The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study that identifies that minor approaches to the intersections of North 7th Avenue with West Villard Street and West Beall Street are expected to operate with a LOS of "D". The applicant must complete a signal warrant analysis at these two locations and submit to the review authority for final determination on whether the intersections meet the City criteria for an exception or waiver for intersections with an LOS of less than "C" (emphasis added). This simple declarative statement by the City’s own engineering department clearly illustrates the arbitrary and inconsistent application of Bozeman’s UDC and calls into question how information is shared up the chain from staff to review authorities. The City’s engineering staff providing this comment is clearly attempting to apply the BMC as written by directing the applicant to follow the procedure for obtaining an exception or waiver for an intersection with an LOS of less than “C”. The fact that there is no exception or waiver indicated, referenced, or granted in the staff report indicates that this comment was not considered because the review authority relied on the same conclusion that was reached in the first staff report, which is that the intersection operates at a LOS C. Further, neither the staff commentary nor the staff report mentions that the future conditions for the intersections in question will operate at a LOS F. And all of this is contradicted by the very TIS the decision is supposedly based on, which asserts that the intersections in question operate at a LOS A for both present and future conditions. These numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, and conflicts perfectly illustrate that the city’s application of Sec. 38.400.060.B.4 is completely and utterly arbitrary and capricious. 11 Staff report 23354 24493 side by side comparison 12 24493 The Guthrie 5th and Villard CCOA DEM SP Public Comment in Support of Appeal No. 25033 Daniel Carty, 213 N. 3rd Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 26 of 26 Finally, and most importantly, it can be reasonably expected that all future development along N 7th Avenue will encounter deficient LOSs for the minor legs along the length of N 7th Avenue from Main Street to Red Wing Drive, especially since the MURD does not require parking and intentionally desires to build larger, more intense development. This situation will require serious mitigation by MDT and the city in order to accommodate the increased demands for parking and access. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Daniel Carty 213 N. 3rd Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 406-548-2810 B. Background of Design Guidelines What are Design Guidelines? The guidelines convey general policies about the design of alterations to exist-ing structures, additions, new construction and site work. However, they do not dictate solutions. Instead, they define a range of appropriate responses to a variety of specific design issues. Why have Design Guidelines? The purpose of the guidelines and the review process through which they are administered is to promote preservation of the historic, cultural and architectural heritage of Bozeman.These resources are fragile and are vulnerable to inappropriate alteration and demolition. Recognizing this concern, Bozeman established these guidelines. One purpose for these guidelines is to inform the community about the design policies the city holds for the overlay district. They indicate an approach to design that will help provide information that property owners may use to make decisions about their buildings and to maintain their historic character. The guidelines also provide Bozeman a basis for making informed, consistent decisions about design. The design guidelines provide a basis for making consistent decisions about the treatment of historic resources. They also serve as educational and planning tools for property owners and their design professionals who seek to make improvements that may affect historic resources. While the design guidelines are written for use by the layperson to plan improvements, property owners are strongly encouraged to enlist the assistance of qualified design and planning professionals, including architects and preservation consultants. Known for its ongoing preservation efforts, the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is foreseeing continued investment in the area, including renovation, additions to existing buildings and infill construction. Therefore, a wide range of construction projects are anticipated and the pressure on the historic district's integrity is increased, as is the need for guidelines. C. Determining Compliance with the Guidelines The Department of Planning and Community Development will administer the guidelines. In doing so, they will consider how each proposed project meets the guidelines and how the proposed work would therefore help to accomplish the design goals set forth in this document and in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). A project may fall into a special review category because of its size or design complexity. In this case the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) and/or the Design Review Board (DRB) may be consulted to advise City Staff on the appropriateness of the project design. It is important to note that the City has the right to update, change and revise previously assigned project types. For example, the Montana Historical & Architectural Inventory files may assign a property a non- contributing status; after reassessing the building, it may in fact be reassigned as a contributing property to the district. Any changes to the building would then need to follow the guidelines for that project type. Introduction 11 TYPE OF WORK CHAPTER TO USE IntroductionChapter 1.RehabilitationGuidelines for Chapter 2. Design Guidelines for all PropertiesChapter 3. Guidelines for Residential AreasChapter 4.Guidelines forCommercial AreasChapter 5. DistrictSpecific Descriptions and GuidelinesAppendix 1. Alteration of a “contributing property” in an Historic District If Residential If Commercial 2. Work on a “non-contributing” property in an Historic District If Residential If Commercial 3. Work on an “individually listed National Register Property” in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District If Residential If Commercial 4. Work on a “historically significant property” in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, but outside of an Historic District If Residential If Commercial 5. Work on a “non-historically significant” property in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District but outside of an Historic District If Residential If Commercial I 6. New infill and construction in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, but outside an Historic District If Residential Zone District If Commercial Zone District 7. New infill and construction in An Historic District* If Residential If Commercial Note: A blank box indicates that the chapter does not apply. *Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 guidelines will be applied more rigorously on projects in these districts. 13 itself, which is typically performance- category (e.g., streetscape elements, site planning, designelementt design guideline statementt A. Character-Defining Features Policy: Historic features, including original materials, architectural details, window and door openings, contribute to the character of a structure and should be preserved when feasible. Continued maintenance is the best preservation method. Guidelines 1. Protect and maintain significant stylistic featur es. • The best preservation procedure is to maintain historic features from the outset so that intervention is not required. • Preserve character-defi ning features. Then, repair only those features that are deteriorated. Finally, replace only those features that are beyond repair. Protect and maintain significant stylistic features, such as this window detail. ✓ Detail of Design Guideline Components F. Components of Design Guidelines Each chapter of the design guidelines contains the following components: Design Element The first is the design elemen category (e.g., streetscape elements, site planning, t category (e.g., streetscape elements, site planning, building materials and secondary structures) under which the design guideline falls. Policy Statement Second is a policy statement explaining the Bozeman Department of Planning’s basic approach to treatment of the design element. This statement provides the basis for the more detailed design guidelines that follow underneath. In cases where special conditions in a specific project are such that the detailed design guidelines do not appear to address the situation, this general policy statement shall serve as the basis for determining the appropriateness of the proposed work. Policy statements are shown as large typeface statements. Design Guidelines Third is the design guideline statemen itself, which is typically performance-t itself, which is typically performance-oriented, describing a desired design treatment. The specific design guidelines are numbered and presented in bold face statements under each policy statement. Additional Information The design guideline statement is followed by supplementary information that is treated as sub-points of the guideline. These sub-points may include additional requirements, or may provide an expanded explanation. These sub-points are listed as bulleted (•) statements. Introduction 15 Illustrations Design guidelines are further explained through the use of photographs and illustrations. Examples given should not be considered the only appropriate options, but rather used as a guiding reference. In most instances, there are numerous possible solutions that meet the intention of the design guidelines, as well as the needs of the property owner. In order to help the reader determine design approaches that are appropriate, many of the illustrations are marked with either a ✓ or an ✘. Those illustrations marked with a ✓ are considered appropriate solutions to the design issue, whereas those illustrations marked with an ✘ are not appropriate. G. Applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) A Certificate of Appropriateness, as its name implies, is a certification that the design of a project is appropriate within the neighborhood or area in which it is located. It is required for any alteration, demolition or new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District as defined in the UDO. Use the following steps for recommendations on how to proceed with a COA application: Step 1. Consider Professional Design Assistance. Property owners are strongly encouraged to engage licensed architects and other design and planning professionals to assist them in developing their concepts. Doing so may facilitate a quick review process. Step 2. Check Other City Regulations. The guidelines supplement other adopted Bozeman ordinances. The Department of Planning can provide information about these regulations, which also may affect the design character of a project. Examples include: • The Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance • The City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan • Design Objectives Plan Step 3. Become Familiar with the Design Guidelines. Review the basic organization of this guidelines document and determine which chapter(s) will apply to a project. The chart listed on page 13 is a great illustration to help see which chapters are applicable. Step 4. Review the Site Context. Consider immediately adjacent properties and also the surrounding character of the project site. Understanding the desired character of the area is vital to the development of an appropriate design. Design Guidelines 16 APPENDIX B Interpretation of Terms These definitions apply to terms related to compliance in the preceding text. Appropriate. In some cases, a stated action or design choice is defined as being “appropriate” in the text. In such cases, by choosing the design ap-proach referred to as “appropriate,” the reader will be in compliance with the guideline. However, in other cases, there may be a design that is not expressly mentioned in the text that also may be deemed “appropriate.” Consider. When the term “consider” is used, a design suggestion is offered to the reader as an example of one method of how the design guideline at hand could be met. Applicants may elect to follow the suggestion, but may also seek alternative means of meeting it. In other cases, the reader is instructed to evaluate the ability to take the course recommended in the context of the specific project. Context. In many cases, the reader is instructed to relate to the context of the project area. The “context” relates to those properties and structures adjacent to, and within the same block as, the proposed project. Contributing Property. A building that is identified as having significance and contributing to the character of a designated historic district is considered a “contributor.” These typically appear on an official survey of historic resources, but in some cases, significance may be determined at the time that an application for approval is submitted. Preservation of key defining features is the goal. Historically Significant Property. Other older buildings that are found within the Conservation Overlay, but outside of any historic district. They are generally isolated buildings, in the context of newer structures, but sometimes they exist in a small grouping. If such a property is not of landmark quality, and it is not in the context of other similar properties, “conservation” of the overall character of the building is the focus. Non-historically Significant Property. These are more recent properties, or older ones that are substantially altered, which lie within the Conservation Over-lay, but outside of any historic district. The objective is to assure that, if altered or scraped, the result would be compatible with the context of the neighborhood, but preservation of features on the building itself is not a consideration. Historic Resource. In general, a “historic resource” building is one that is 50 years old or older, associated with significant people or events or conveys a character of building and design found during the period of significance. App - 2 Design Guidelines Inappropriate. Inappropriate means impermissible. When the term “inap-propriate” is used, the relevant design approach will not be allowed. For example, one guideline states: “Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is inappropriate.” Individual Listing. A property that, on its own, has sufficient significance to be considered a historic resource may be designated an individual historic landmark. For these, preservation is an objective, and the guidelines for rehabilitation are to be applied rigorously. The design guidelines for all properties would also apply. And, if the landmark also lies within a historic district, the special neighborhood chapter would also apply. Non-historic. Recent buildings and those 50 years old or older which have lost their integrity are considered “non-historic.” These buildings do retain property value, but do not possess the significance and/or physical integrity necessary to be considered a historic resource. Non-contributing Property A building found within a designated historic district, but which does not con-tribute to the significance of the district, is in this category. This may be a newer building that has not taken on significance, or it may be an older one that has been so substantially altered that it lacks integrity as a historic resource. The objective is to assure that, if altered or scraped, the result would be compatible with the historic context, but preservation of features on the building itself is not a consideration. Preferred. In some cases, the reader is instructed that a certain design ap-proach is “preferred.” In such a case, the reader is encouraged to choose the design option at hand. However, other approaches may be considered. Primary facade. The primary facade is the principal elevation of a building, usually facing the street or other public way. Should. If the term “should” appears in a design guideline, compliance is required. In cases where specific circumstances of a project make it impracti-cal to do so, the City may determine that compliance is not required if the applicant demonstrates how the related policy statement still will be met. Traditional. Based on or established by the history of the area. Design Guidelines App - 3 March 30, 2025 Bozeman City Commission 121 N Rouse Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Appeal of Administrative Approval for Application 24493 – The Guthrie Greenlight Engineering has been asked by Bozeman Home Advocacy Group, LLC to evaluate the transportation related impacts of the proposed “The Guthrie” development in Bozeman, Montana. I have reviewed the September 2024 “The Guthrie Traffic Impact Study” (“TIS”) and the March 26, 2025 staff report I reviewed the transportation impacts of the previous application on this site and provided comments dated July 7, 2024 which are Exhibit 016 of this appeal. Level of Service of 7 th Avenue/Beall Street and 7 th Avenue/Villard Street The City's staff report states: “Level of Service is a qualitative metric used to describe intersection operations as measured by average vehicle delay. This is explicitly and inarguably not a direct measure of safety and does not even attempt to evaluate modes of transportation such as bicycles and pedestrians. Further, there is no explicit industry standard that can be applied to “prove” an intersection will operate safely nor any objective definition of “safety”as a measurable metric. Adequate safety is presumed to derive from an intersection meeting standards for appropriate geometry and traffic control, which both intersections of Villard and Beall with North 7th Avenue comply in the existing and design year. Staff notes that higher level of service may in fact require design features that allow for increased throughput and therefore reduced vehicle delay. Such features include wider multi-lane intersections that increase pedestrian crossing distances and conflicts with vehicles, prohibition of protected pedestrian phasing at signalized intersections, and permissive left turn phasing instead of protected left turn phasing. Modern engineering practice has thoroughly concluded such design features correlate with reduced, not improved, multimodal safety.” The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides a methodology for measuring the level of service (LOS) for pedestrians. While there is no indisputable correlation between LOS and safety, the City of Bozeman’s adoption of a whole-intersection LOS approach for a two-way stop-controlled intersection is unprecedented, a construct of the City without any definition, and not industry standard. The City's whole intersection methodology has been applied inconsistently across different applications over the years. Notably, the City does not use this whole- intersection approach when planning its own projects, instead adhering to HCM methodology in the Bozeman Transportation Plan. Under the City’s whole intersection methodology, increasing traffic volumes on 7th Avenue would lead to increasing delays for traffic on Beall Street and Villard Street, yet paradoxically, the reported LOS for the intersection would often improve due the averaging of delays. Large volume 7th Street traffic essentially experiences no delay while lower volume side street traffic experiences high delays. This counter intuitive result raises potential safety concerns, as drivers attempting to enter 7th Avenue would face increasing delays and be forced to accept smaller gaps in traffic. The HCM, which defines LOS, explicitly states that there is no 13554 Rogers Road ● Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com ● 503.317.4559 methodology for evaluating two-way stop-controlled intersections as a whole, yet the City attempts to rely on a non-existent methodology. The staff report states: “The Highway Capacity Manual states that failure of individual legs of a two-way stop controlled intersection should not be the sole basis for selection of appropriate traffic control, which in this case would be the required mitigation element. For this reason, and based on the requirement in 38.220.060.A.11.g.(2).(d). (“For two-way stop controlled intersections, analysis of whether the intersection would satisfy signalization warrants if the two-way stop control was removed.”), staff required a signal warrant study to determine the appropriateness of traffic control. The Developer complied with this requirement as demonstrated by the Traffic Signal Warrant analysis dated October 11, 2024. The warrant studies determined signalization is not warranted and therefore, that form of mitigation of the individual leg LOS failures through signalization was not required.” While the most recent TIS studied the need for traffic signals at the 7th Avenue/Beall Street and 7th Avenue/Villard Street intersections and found that traffic signal warrants are not met, that does not absolve the application from also complying with the requirement of BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) which states: “The city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The review authority may approve a development only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which must be a minimum of 15 years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections must have a minimum acceptable LOS of "C" for the intersection as a whole.” In this particular application, the City attempts to rely upon a non-existent and undefined whole intersection methodology while also dictating compliance with the Highway Capacity Manual. An applicant cannot meet both requirements because those requirements directly conflict with each other. Meanwhile, the City utilizes the actual HCM methodology as part of the Bozeman Transportation Plan. Presumably, the City is attempting to rely upon the LOS C delay thresholds of the HCM for two-way stop controlled intersections even though the HCM provides no definition of how to analyze an intersection in such a way nor does it present a way to measure the performance of an intersection in that way because the LOS thresholds are based on those movements that experience delay. The methodology, still undefined, appears to be an invention of the City and surely not compliant with the HCM. The staff report notes: “Staff considered other potential mitigation solutions for individual leg LOS failures that would generally restrict crossing and left turning movements from the local streets, Villard and Beall, onto North 7th Avenue. Staff ultimately did not recommend mitigation for three reasons. First, the practical impact of the reduction in minor leg LOS in the design year (2038) is 1 to 3 vehicles queued in the 95th percentile scenario in the peak hour. The existing peak hour 95th percentile queue is 1. Therefore, the increase in queued vehicles is small and occurs only during short durations of the day, which suggests the mitigation measure would be of minimal benefit. Second, staff cannot find any evidence of public complaint or dissatisfaction at these intersections that would indicate queuing of this nature is unacceptable. Finally, the additional queuing and delay is almost entirely due to projected background growth in traffic volume and not that which is induced by The Guthrie development itself. As a means of comparison, a traffic study of the previous use of the site as an assisted living facility of lesser intensity in the design year (2038) would have a high probability of showing a similar increase in queuing and decrease in minor leg LOS.” While staff presents this analysis, staff does not provide reference to any applicable code that indicates that this analysis is relevant to the approval criteria. Approval of the application must be based on the approval criteria. City staff notes: “Appellant also finds fault with the City’s analysis of the LOS of intersections near The Guthrie because the analysis was different from and inconsistent with an unrelated zone map amendment application for a different location that was denied in 2022. The two applications are entirely distinguishable and denial of the zone map amendment application near the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street has no bearing or relation to staff’s analysis of The Guthrie site plan application. One critical distinction is that the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street was evaluated in the 2017 Transportation Master Plan and found to fail LOS while meeting conditions that warrant a signalized intersection. One critical distinction is that the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street was evaluated in the 2017Transportation Master Plan and found to fail LOS while meeting conditions that warrant a signalized intersection. In contrast, the intersections of Villard and Beall with North 7th Avenue do not meet signal warrants...2024 Montana Department of Transportation traffic volume data indicates that traffic on Haggerty Lane approaching East Main Street has an average annual daily traffic count of 2,986, which is more than triple the traffic volume found on Beall and Villard. The combination of these factors indicates a substantial difference in the conditions and analysis applied between the two projects. Appellant’s proffered example is inapposite to the application at issue in this appeal.” It is unclear how the applications are entirely distinguishable. The Haggerty application and City's decision relied upon the applicant's HCM based methodology and not on the undefined, intersection as a whole methodology that is not based on the HCM. The City, without explanation, has apparently taken opposite approaches in interpretation of their standards with the Haggerty application and this application. This would seemingly present a significant concern to City decision makers. It is certainly possible that when making opposite interpretations of the same standard that opposite results such as approval or denial may occur. At the very least, this example highlights the disparity in application of analysis methodologies and the lack of compliance with the City's own Transportation Plan methodology. Whether a traffic signal is warranted or not or how much side street volume is present is completely irrelevant to the approval criteria. If the approval criteria is not met, then the application cannot be approved. In my July 7, 2024 report, I noted: “BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) states that 'The city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.' The Highway Capacity Manual states: 'LOS for a [two-way stop controlled] intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay. For motor vehicles, LOS is determined for each minor-street movement (or shared movement), as well as the major-street left turns, by using the criteria given in Exhibit 20-2. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole (emphasis added) or for major-street approaches for three primary reasons: (a) major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay; (b) the disproportionate number of major-street through vehicles at a typical TWSC intersection skews the weighted average of all movements, resulting in a very low overall average delay for all vehicles; and (c) the resulting low delay can mask LOS deficiencies for minor movements...Unsignalized intersections are also associated with more uncertainty for users, as delays are less predictable than they are at signals.' The Highway Capacity Manual provides no methodology for analyzing level of service as a whole for two way stop controlled intersections like N 7th Avenue/W Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/W Beall Street and then explains why no such methodology exists. The N 7th Avenue northbound and southbound through traffic have no delay as there is no traffic control (stop signs or signalization) to cause delay. With increasing traffic on N 7th Avenue, the intersection, if considered as a whole, could theoretically improve operations while in reality, side street traffic could be experiencing very long delays and difficulty turning onto the N 7th Avenue. It doesn't make sense to analyze two way stop controlled intersections as a whole as it may for an all-way stop controlled intersection or a signalized intersection. Indeed, the city's adopted methodology clearly does not allow for analyzing an intersection in the way the city is attempting to analyze intersections.” BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) requires the use of “the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.” If an analysis is not conducted using HCM methodology, then compliance with BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) is not possible. In my 25 years of preparing and reviewing traffic impact studies, I have never encountered any other agency that assesses LOS for a two-way stop-controlled intersection based on delay for the entire intersection. However, it is commonplace for agencies to adopt and apply standards based on the HCM, which the City has simultaneously done and also currently employs as part of their Transportation Plan. The HCM defines LOS for two-way stop-controlled intersections based on delay per vehicle for individual movements or approaches that experience delay (not major street through movements), not for the intersection as a whole. The HCM explicitly states “The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole”. In applying HCM methodology and the BMC’s requirement to analyze intersections using the HCM, along with the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), both of the N 7th Avenue/Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections are projected to operate at LOS F. As previously established, no methodology exists within the HCM to evaluate two-way stop-controlled intersections as a whole. There is no technical definition for such a method, nor is there any adopted means of measuring or calculating it. This methodology is not supported by any commercially available traffic engineering software. The applicant’s TIS provides no evidence that illustrates how it was concluded that the N 7th Avenue/Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections operate at LOS A. There is no HCM-based methodology that could produce this conclusion, nor does the TIS include any supporting calculations that support a finding of LOS A. The TIS states that the projected average delay at the N 7th Avenue/Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections is 3 and 2.5 seconds per vehicle, respectively. Meanwhile, the side street LOS (per HCM methodology) is nearly 96 seconds at both intersections with individual movements experiencing a delay of up to 175 seconds per vehicle. Although the HCM does not define LOS for a two-way stop-controlled intersection as a whole, it can be inferred that the City is attempting to apply the HCM’s LOS thresholds based on delay of movements and approaches that experience delay to the entire intersection even though the majority of traffic at the intersections experience no delay. Erroneously using those thresholds, an average delay of more than 25 seconds per vehicle would be required to reach LOS C, or an increased delay of more than ten (10) times of the projected 2.5 seconds per vehicle. However, given that through traffic on N 7th Avenue—comprising the vast majority of vehicles—experiences no delay, the City’s methodology inherently skews the results. This flawed approach would commonly result in traffic analysis that illustrates that as N 7th Avenue traffic volumes increase, the intersection’s overall LOS improves, even as side street delays significantly worsen. By this logic, delays on the side streets would have to vastly exceed 96 seconds per vehicle (likely minutes of delay) to approach LOS C for the intersection as a whole. This methodology is fundamentally unsound, unheard of, and does not align with the HCM, Bozeman's Transportation Plan or standard traffic engineering principles. Excerpt of TIS While city staff have testified that the LOS requirements of the BMC have remained unchanged for many years. The Haggerty application, at minimum, establishes an inconsistent application of the same standard that could result in opposite findings of LOS A vs. LOS F and approval vs. denial. It seems plausible that the City of Bozeman has required improvements or denied projects based on the HCM/Transportation Plan methodology, rather than evaluating projects under the whole intersection methodology. The variation in the city's application of the BMC raises important questions about why opposite interpretations of the same standard have been applied to different cases. Notably, the City of Bozeman’s Transportation Plan is explicitly based on the HCM methodology, which directly contradicts staff’s current interpretation of the BMC. Montana law requires consistency between transportation plans and development codes. Montana Code Annotated § 76-2-304 states: “Zoning regulations must be...made in accordance with a growth policy.” Furthermore, BMC Section 38.100.050 requires that when conflicts arise between regulations, the most restrictive standard must prevail. Additionally, BMC Section 38.110.010 formally adopts by reference the Transportation Plan. Given that the HCM methodology results in a LOS F for this application, whereas the BMC’s whole intersection approach interestingly yields exactly the opposite outcome, or LOS A, the HCM and Transportation Plan methodology is demonstrably more restrictive and should arguably govern. The “Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum,” an appendix of the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan states: “LOS for two-way stop (TWS) controlled intersections are based on the delay experienced by each movement individually within the intersections, rather than on the average stopped delay per vehicle at the intersection. This difference from the method used for signalized intersections is necessary since the operating characteristics of stop-controlled intersection (sic) are substantially different. Driver expectation and perceptions are entirely different. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the through traffic on the major (uncontrolled) street experiences no delay at the intersection. Conversely, vehicles turning left from the minor street experience more delay than other movements and at time (sic) experience significant delay. Vehicles on the minor street which are turning right or going across the major street experience less delay than those turning left from the same approach. Due to this situation, the LOS is based on the average delay incurred at the worst performing movement. For all-way stop (AWS) and roundabout controlled intersections, LOS is based on average vehicle delay experienced at the intersection. This methodology is similar to that of signalized intersections...” The planned projects within the Transportation Plan, some of which are no doubt based on LOS standards, are presumably based on the HCM methodology outlined within the plan itself. However, it is unclear whether the City of Bozeman intended to apply one standard for evaluating its own projects and an entirely different standard for assessing development projects. The approach in the Haggerty application vs. this application are certainly inconsistent. Applying the whole intersection methodology would yield significantly different results than using the Transportation Plan/HCM methodology with one resulting in LOS A and the other resulting in opposite results at LOS F. Given the clear discrepancy between these two approaches and the absence of any HCM methodology supporting the BMC standard, it is possible that the BMC contains a significant and consequential error as other intersection types besides two-way stop-controlled intersections include a HCM methodology to analyze an intersection as a whole. Mitigation for Substandard LOS In considering mitigation for the “substandard LOS on the east and west legs” of the 7th Avenue/Villard Street and 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections, the TIS notes: “The intersections of North 7th Avenue/West Villard Street and North 7th Avenue/West Beall Street are anticipated to operate at substandard LOS on the east and west legs (local streets) during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of a dedicated left-turn lane on West Villard Street and right and left-turn lanes on West Beall Street are not expected to result in a significant capacity improvement. The installation of a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) on North 7th Avenue would have a larger improvement in delay by permitting two-staged left-turns from the minor legs. This would require major reconstruction to North 7th Avenue and is not an easily feasible solution. It is likely that when volumes are high on North 7th Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours, vehicles attempting to make a left-turn from the minor legs will reroute to a signalized intersection if excessive delay is experienced. Restrictions to West Villard Street and West Beall Street minor legs could also be considered in the future to improve minor leg operations; however, this change would greatly impact the connectivity of the neighborhoods. Minor leg volumes at both deficient intersections are low and would not warrant the installation of a signal unless a safety concern arises in the future...” The BMC states that an exception to the LOS requirement may be granted “If an intersection within the area required to be studied by section 38.220.060.A.12 does not meet LOS 'C' and the intersection has been fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity, then an LOS of less than 'C' is acceptable.” However, this is not the case. It is clear based on the TIS that a TWLTL would likely be expensive, but the expense of an improvement doesn't absolve the applicant of complying with the approval criteria. Just to the north of these intersections, 7th Avenue has been constructed with a five lane section, so it is clear that the corridor is not constructed to its maximum capacity. The TIS mentions, but doesn't evaluate any other options that may mitigate this substandard LOS. There is no evidence that other exceptions have been evaluated or granted. Any of these solutions could be implemented and may improve operations, but the TIS has not analyzed any of them. Traffic Calming The staff report notes my July 7, 2024 “analysis finds fault in failure to adequately define the need for traffic calming, which was required by staff through a condition of approval of the site plan. Traffic calming features inherently support safety through reduction of vehicle speed. The independent report’s criticism of the City’s failure to justify need for the traffic calming infrastructure contradicts its own claim that the development will induce unsafe traffic operations.” Staff has incorrectly interpreted my comments. My traffic calming comments also do not pertain to my concerns about the 7th Avenue/Beall and 7th Avenue/Villard intersections. My report notes: “The TIS addendum #2 insinuates that whether a street has a traffic volume over 1,000 vehicles per day is the major determining factor in determining the need for traffic calming and that if a street has a traffic volume under 1,000 ADT, traffic calming measures should not be considered. Rather, the FHWA ePrimer notes that “For example, a jurisdiction could have a minimum daily traffic volume (e.g., 1,000 vehicles per day; 100 vehicles during peak hour in one direction) before consideration is given to implementing traffic calming.” The ePrimer provides an example of a possible threshold, but does not suggest or dictate this threshold....Notably, the TIS, TIS addendum and TIS addendum #2 don't provide any evidence of the traffic counts or traffic speeds collected in reviewing the need for traffic calming in the neighborhood.” The ePrimer referenced by the applicant's TIS refer to numerous other considerations for the need for traffic calming. My comments are not an argument against traffic calming, but questions whether adequate traffic calming has been proposed. The TIS appears to rely solely upon a volume threshold that the City has not adopted, but there is other relevant criteria as to when traffic calming should be considered. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559. Sincerely, Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Traffic Engineer Table 2-4 Level of Service (LOS) for Unsignalized Intersections 094x1 Conditions) A.M. Peak Flour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Major Street Minor Street Major Street Minor Street Rouse Avenue &Peach Street A C/C A E±/F Rouse Avenue&Tamarack Street A A/C A D/D Rouse Avenue&Babcock A B/C A C/D 1 Wilson Avenue&Mendenhall A F/C A F/F South 11th&College A E/D A F/F South 39th&College A C/C A D) Forth 7th&Griffin Drive A F B F Kagy Boulevard&Willson Avenue B E A D Traffic volume checks were made at these locations to determine current signalization needs. A signal warrant analysis for unsgnalized intersections is contained in Chapter 5 of this flan. 2.5 Accident Analysis As part of the Transportation Plan Update, an accident investigation was conducted to 4 identify accident characteristics and high accident locations in the Bozeman urban area. 4 Summaries of accident records for the road and street system were obtained from the Highway Information System (HIS) maintained by the Montana Department of Justice,Highway Traffic Safety Division. All reported motor vehicle accidents for the period from January 1, 1988 through ]December 31, 1990 were reviewed for this analysis. Urban Study Area Accidents - A total of 2,380 motor vehicle accidents were reported within the urban study area during the three-year period.This,accident total included five fatal accidents and 654 injury accidents,producing five fatalities and 867 injuries.Property damage only (PDO) was recorded in 1,721 of the reported accidents during the period. The HIS accident data also revealed other pertinent statistics for the study area such as: 2-13 l E Table 2-3 Level of Service (LOS) for Signalized Intersections (19"91 Conditions) Overall LOS Overall LOS Intersection A.M. Peak Hour) P.M. Peak Hour) West Main/College Street/Main Mall B B West Main/19th Avenue C* C* West Maln/15th Avenue B* Q West Main/11th Avenue B B West Main/8th Avenue B B West Main/North 7th Avenue B B West Main/5th Avenue B B West Maln/Grand Avenue B B Main/Willson Avenue B B East Main/Tracy Avenue B B East Maln/Black Avenue B B East Main/Bozeman Avenue B B East Main/Rouse Avenue B*C* Babcock/Willson Avenue B B Mendenhall/Rouse Avenue B B Mendenholi/North 7th Avenue B B North 7th/Durston Road/Pesach G* D Denotes Intersection wOth at least one approach operating at LOS D or below during peak tours. Unsignalized Intersections - The level of service can be analyzed for locations where Stop" or "Yield." signs are used to control traffic on one of the intersecting streets. In this analysis, the distribution of gaps (spaces) in the conflicting traffic stream on the major street, and the ability of motorists on the side streets to execute their desired maneuvers during available gaps are the primary considerations. Level of service criteria are ex-pressed in terms of general delay to minor street traffic, and the reserve capacity of the specific approach lane being evaluated. Major unsignalized intersections in the Bozeman area were evaluated to determine their current LOS. The results of these analyses are presented in TABLE 2-4. 2-I2 Table 2-6 Identified Problems on the Major Street Network Signalizatlon Accident Approach Poor Level Problems/ Location Problems Delays of Service Needs Other South 6th and Olive West Main and Grand South 8th and West Main Street 3 North 5th and West Main Street 4 Main and Willson Congestion East Main and Black Avenue East Main and Church Avenue rt Babcock and Willson Geometrics East Main and Wallace 3 Sourdough and Goldenstein Limited Sight Distance East Main and Highland r Kagy and Highland Limited Sight E Distance Speeding Babcock and South 8th 3 South 9th and Olive East Main and Bozeman Street East Main and Tracy Street t-Approach delays 25 seconds or greater 2.Overall LOS for intersection D or below(AM/PM peak hours) 3-At least one approach operating at LOS D or below in peak hour 4-Knor street operates at LOS D or below unsignalized intersection 5-Need to modify signal timing/phasing to optimize operation of signal 2-19 Table 2-6 Identified Problems on the Major Street Network Signalition Accident Approach Poor Level Problems/ Location Problems Delays of Service Needs Other P1 East Main and douse 3 Babcock and Tracy P1 1-90 Interchange(East Bozeman)P1v Babcock and Rouse 4 PM P1Ntatist,Irta a Geornetrics Rouse Avenue and Peach STreet a PM Uncontrolled Story ill and'Mclllhatten Intersection Limited Sight Distance Vllard and North Grand Willson and Mendenhall North 7th and Tamarack Griffin and North Rouse Rouse and Tamarack 4 PM 5t a1 1'kr.;i.i i>il l;tlt= College/Main Mall Ent./West Main X AM 4 West Main&l=ast Entrance to Mall tWe:stMai:n& 9th.Avenue 3 uth 19th&Babcock Avenue 1.Approach delays 25 seconds or greater2-Overall LOS for intersection D or below(AWPM peak hours)3-At least one approach operating at LOS D or below in peak hour 4-Minor street operates at LOS D or below-unsignaiized intersection 5 -Need to modily signal timing/phasing to optimize operation of signal 2-2a I Identified Problems oTable 2-6 n the Major Street Network Accident A e a as Signalizatio n Location Po LProblemsYofService Needs Other West Main&North 15th Avenue rt 3 4 Koch&'South 11 th Avenue rt Sight Distance Obstructions i South 9th&Olive rt Uncontrolled Intersection South 7th&West Main rt 3 South 7th&Harrison V South 8th&College South 3rd&Goldenstein(East) South 3rd&Goldenstein(West) South 19th&Kagy Boulevard rt II ISouth11th&College Street 3 4 AM/PM South 19th&College Street rt 3 4 PM 11th Avenue&South 19th Avenue West Main& 11th Avenue I US 191 &Ferguson Road NorE1esi`#3csxetraifX West Main&North 7th p 3 North 7th& Durston/Peach rt rt rt3 AM/PM North 11 th&Durston 3 North 15th& Durston rt 1-Approach delays 25 seconds or greater 2,Overall LOS for intersection D or below(AWPM peak hours)3-At least one approach operating at LOS D or below in peak hour4-Minor street operates at LOS D or below-unsignalized intersection5-Need to modify signal timing/phasing to optimize operation ofsignal 2-21. Table 2-G Identified Problems on the Major Street Network Signalization Accident Approach Poor Level Problems/ Location Problems Delays of Service Needs Other North 9th&Lamme Street North 7th&Mendenhall North 7th&Wheat/Nickks North 7th&Griffin/Mandeville 4 AM/PM North 71h&W.-bound 1-90 Ramps North 19th& Baxter North 8th&Mendenhall 1-90 at North 7th Avenue Secondary 205 1-Approach delays 25 seconds or greater 2.Overall LOSfor intersection D or below(AWPM peak hours) 8-At least one approach operating at LOS D or below in peak hour 4-Minor street operates at LOS D or below-unsignalized intersecton 5-Need to modify signal timing/phasing to optimize oppration of signal 2-22 Existing Conditions greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 2-3 1999 Level of Service LOS for Unsi nalized Intersections A.M. Pear Dour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Major Street Minor Street Major Street Minor Street N.19 and Baxter A B/D A F/FN. 7th and Griffin A A/F A C/FRouseandGriffinAC/B A C/BStoryMillandBridgerCanyonDr. A B/A A B/ARouseandOakABAC Rouse and Peach A B/B A C/DU.S. 191 and Cottonwood A E/F A F/FU.S. 191 and Fowler A F A F E. Main and Wallace A B/C A B/FS,11 m and College C C D D Willson and College A C/D A F/E S. 1 9th and Kagy B B A S. I 1 and Kagy A B/E A B/F Kaq y and Sourdou h A D/B A C/CS. 19th and Goldenstein A A B The LOS analysis of the unsignalized intersections in the Bozeman area shows operational problems at seven intersections including: North 19th and Baxter; North 7th and Griffin; U.S. 191 and Cottonwood; U.S. 191 and Fowler; East Main and Wallace; Willson and College; and South 11th and Kagy. 2.5 Travel Speed In an effort to determine general traffic and delay patterns, a travel time and delay study was performed. Six routes were identified which include most of the major traffic routes through the area. Each roadway segment was traveled 12 times (six times in each direction) using the average-car-analysis method during peak hours. This information was used to determine the average travel speed and running speed, as well as intersection delay for each corridor. Travel speed is defined as the speed at which a vehicle travels between two points including any delays. Running speed refers to the actual vehicle speed while the vehicle is in motion (travel speed minus delay). The information presented in FIGURES 2-5 and 2-6 illustrates the results of the travel time and delay studies. In most areas the average travel speeds were relatively close to the posted speed limit for the routes. Major intersection delays (greater than 25 seconds of average stopped time) were experienced at several intersections. The intersections and specific approaches where these delays occurred are listed below: Robert Peccia &Associates 2-10 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Upstate) Chapter 2:Existing Conditions Table 2-5 2007 LOS (Stop-Controlled Intersections) INTERSECTION AM G PM.., 1N 1 F tS C I I©N AM PM Frontage Road&Nelson Road C N C Jackrabbit Lane&Valley Center Road 1)_,. ( E - Frontage Road&'Valley Center Underpass C E Jackrabbit Lane&Hulbert Road C D w ........ __..... ..__... w.__.._ _____ ___ _ __..._.- Highland Boulevard&Ellis Street C E Jackrabbit Lane&Baxter Lane C D Highland Boulevard&Kagy Boulevard E C Jackrabbit Lane&Durston Road C D East Main Street&Haggerty Lane W C E Jackrabbit Lane&Ramshorn Drive D C Haggerty Lane&Bozeman Trail Road A A Jackrabbit Lane&Forkhom Trail E E Kagy Boulevard&Bozeman Trail Road B B Jackrabbit Lane&Shedhorri Trail C jl E Ka Boulevard&Sourdough Road F F Jackrabbit.Lane&Spanish Peak Drive C C Main S Street&1-90 Off-Ramp C B Huffine Lane&Monforton School Road B C Maim Street&1-90 On-Ramp B B Huf£ine Lane&Love Lane C C Story Mill Road&Badger Canyon Drive B C Huffine Lane&Gooch Hill Road B C North Rouse Avenue&Peach Street C C Valley Center Road&Harper Puckett Road B B South 11th Avenue&College Street D F 8th Avenue&College Street C D College Street&Willson Avenue E F U5.191&Gooch Hill Road B C South 11th Avenue&Kagy Boulevard D F U.&191&Mill Street C C South 19th Avenue&Goldenstein Road B mmB U,&191&Cottonwood Road B C Jackrabbit Lane&Cameron Bridge Road D i F The LOS analyses of the existing conditions in the Greater Bozeman Area reveals that several signalized and unsignalized intersections are currently functioning at LOS D or lower. These intersections are shown in Table 2-6 and are ideal candidates for closer examination and potential intersection improvements measures. Refer to Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 for a detailed performance level turning movement breakout for each unsignalized intersection. Robert Peccia&Associates,Inc.!ALTA Planning+Design 2-19 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update) Chapter 2::Existing Conditions Table 2-6 Existing Intersections Functioning at LOS D or Lower INTERSECTION AM PEAK P1V1 PEAK 8tth Avenue&College Street U I C D College Street&Willson Avenue U E F East Main Street&Haggerty Lane i U C E Frontage Road&Valley Center Underpass U C E Highland Boulevard&Ellis Street U i C E Highland Boulevard&Kagy Boulevard U C Hu££ane Lane&Ferguson Road S E —E Jackrabbit Lane&Cameron Bridge Road U D F Jackrabbit Lane&Valley Center Road U D E jackrabbit Lane&Hulbert Road U jackrabbit Lane&Baxter Lane I — C D jackrabbit Lane&Durston Road U C D jackrabbit Lane&Ramshom Drive U D C Jackrabbit Lane&Forkhorn Trail U F E jackrabbit Lane&Shedhorn Trail U C E Kagy Boulevard&South Willson Avenue S D D Kagy Boulevard&Sourdough Road U F F Main Street&7th Avenue S C E Main Street&Babcock Street S C D Mann Street&Haggerty Lane BJ C Main Street&Highland Boulevard Main Street&So 19th Avenue F D North 7th Avenue&Durston Road S ' _ D D North 7th Avenue&Oak Street S C 4 D South 11th Avenue&College Street U D F South 11th Avenue&Kagy Boulevard U D F West College Street&South 19th Avenue S E F S)ignalized U)nsignalized 2-20 Robert Peccaa&Associates, Inc.1 ALTA Planning+Design SEE DETAIL(FIGURE 2-6)Existing Corridor SizeFigure 2-5 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan(2007 Update) 0 10,0005,000 Feet Legend 2-Lane 3-Lane 4-Lane 5-Lane Corridor Size Interstate Detail Area City Boundary Urban Boundary Study Area Boundary Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions 2-18 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2.2.4.2 Unsignalized Intersections Level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the delay experienced by each movement within the intersection, rather than on the overall stopped delay per vehicle at the intersection. This difference from the method used for signalized intersections is necessary since the operating characteristics of a stop-controlled intersection are substantially different. Driver expectations and perceptions are also entirely different. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the through traffic on the major (uncontrolled) street experiences no delay at the intersection. Conversely, vehicles turning left from the minor street experience more delay than other movements and at times can experience significant delay. Vehicles on the minor street, which are turning right or going across the major street, experience less delay than those turning left from the same approach. Due to this situation, the LOS assigned to a two-way stop controlled intersection is based on the average delay for vehicles on the minor street approach. Levels of service for all-way stop controlled intersections are also based on delay experienced by the vehicles at the intersection. Since there is no major street, the highest delay could be experienced by any of the approaching streets. Therefore, the level of service is based on the approach with the highest delay as shown in Table 2-4. This table shows the LOS criteria for both the all-way and two-way stop controlled intersections. Table 2-4 Level of Service Criteria (Stop Controlled Intersections) LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAY (SEC/VEH) A < 10 B 10 to 15 C 15 to 25 D 25 to 35 E 35 to 50 F > 50 Source: The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual Using the above guidelines, the data collected in the summer/fall of 2007, and calculation techniques for two-way stop controls and all-way stop controls, the LOS was calculated for 33 intersections. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 2-5. The intersection LOS is shown graphically in Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design 2-19 Table 2-5 2007 LOS (Stop-Controlled Intersections) INTERSECTION AM PM INTERSECTION AM PM Frontage Road & Nelson Road C C Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road D E Frontage Road & Valley Center Underpass C E Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert Road C D Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street C E Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane C D Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard E C Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road C D East Main Street & Haggerty Lane C E Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive D C Haggerty Lane & Bozeman Trail Road A A Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail E E Kagy Boulevard & Bozeman Trail Road B B Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail C E Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road F F Jackrabbit Lane & Spanish Peak Drive C C Main Street & I-90 Off-Ramp C B Huffine Lane & Monforton School Road B C Main Street & I-90 On-Ramp B B Huffine Lane & Love Lane C C Story Mill Road & Bridger Canyon Drive B C Huffine Lane & Gooch Hill Road B C North Rouse Avenue & Peach Street C C Valley Center Road & Harper Puckett Road B B South 11th Avenue & College Street D F 8th Avenue & College Street C D College Street & Willson Avenue E F U.S. 191 & Gooch Hill Road B C South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard D F U.S. 191 & Mill Street C C South 19th Avenue & Goldenstein Road B B U.S. 191 & Cottonwood Road B C Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road D F The LOS analyses of the existing conditions in the Greater Bozeman Area reveals that several signalized and unsignalized intersections are currently functioning at LOS D or lower. These intersections are shown in Table 2-6 and are ideal candidates for closer examination and potential intersection improvements measures. Refer to Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 for a detailed performance level turning movement breakout for each unsignalized intersection. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Chapter 2: Existing Conditions 2-20 Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design Table 2-6 Existing Intersections Functioning at LOS D or Lower INTERSECTION AM PEAK PM PEAK 8tth Avenue & College Street U C D College Street & Willson Avenue U E F East Main Street & Haggerty Lane U C E Frontage Road & Valley Center Underpass U C E Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street U C E Highland Boulevard & Kagy Boulevard U E C Huffine Lane & Ferguson Road S E E Jackrabbit Lane & Cameron Bridge Road U D F Jackrabbit Lane & Valley Center Road U D E Jackrabbit Lane & Hulbert Road U C D Jackrabbit Lane & Baxter Lane U C D Jackrabbit Lane & Durston Road U C D Jackrabbit Lane & Ramshorn Drive U D C Jackrabbit Lane & Forkhorn Trail U E E Jackrabbit Lane & Shedhorn Trail U C E Kagy Boulevard & South Willson Avenue S D D Kagy Boulevard & Sourdough Road U F F Main Street & 7th Avenue S C E Main Street & Babcock Street S C D Main Street & Haggerty Lane U C E Main Street & Highland Boulevard S C F Main Street & South 19th Avenue S D D North 7th Avenue & Durston Road S D D North 7th Avenue & Oak Street S C D South 11th Avenue & College Street U D F South 11th Avenue & Kagy Boulevard U D F West College Street & South 19th Avenue S E F (S)ignalized (U)nsignalized Historic Preservation Advisory Board September 12, 2017 | 6:00 pm City Hall: Madison Room - 121 N. Rouse Ave., Bozeman MT A. 06:00:08 PM (00:03:46) Call meeting to order and Roll Call – Present Were: • Michael Wallner (Chair) • Jeanne Wilkinson • Vicky York • Eric Karshner • Crystal Allegria • Chris Saunders (Staff Liaison) B. 06:00:16 PM (00:04:04) Changes to the Agenda Board member Jeanne Wilkinson requested that Action Item #3 is moved to item #1, which was approved by the Chair. C. 06:00:55 PM (00:04:33) Minutes for Approval: • 7.11.17 Wilkinson requested the following changes to the minutes: • Removing her name from the ‘Present Were’ list since she was not physically present, but conferenced in via phone • On p. 3 of the minutes, change: “Board member Wilkinson recommended that the DRB have the authority to review large scale projects” to “all mixed use, multifamily residential, industrial and commercial new developments and substantial renovation projects located within the NCOD.” • On p. 3 of the minutes, change: “The group discussed the possibility of removing "historically significant" from the section due to it being defined too narrowly with how we identify historically significant structures” to “because its addition narrows the intent of this section.” 06:03:44 PM (00:07:22) Wilkinson also posed the question regarding Page 3, Bullet Point - Zone Edge Transition, last two lines of first paragraph: "Saunders answered that the NCOD guidelines take precedence over general guidelines in the code because a more detailed standard typically takes precedence of a more general standard." Q- This statement doesn't make sense because the code language was more specific and this refers to it as more general. Can we clarify? Saunders responded by stating that the NCOD guidelines would take precedence over the language in the City’s Unified Development Code. 06:06:07 PM (00:09:45) MOTION to approve minutes with Changes: (individual not on camera) 06:06:13 PM (00:09:51) MOTION SECONDED: (individual not on camera) 06:06:17 PM (00:09:55) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes Unanimously D. 06:06:34 PM (00:10:12) Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication (discussions regarding relevant board information outside of publicly noticed meetings) E. 06:07:23 PM (00:11:01) Public Comment 06:07:34 PM (00:11:12) Richard (last name not audible) commented regarding detached accessory dwelling units within the conservation overlay with alleys and discussed at length what the historic area of the City will look like in the long-term if development and approval of ADUs continues. He concluded that alleyway ADUs are ineffective and they should not be done. 06:16:16 PM (00:19:54) Gentleman discussed the importance of context in the larger situation. He said that lining highrises on either side of Main Street would ruin the context; however, development is not all bad, for example the R Bar renovations fits within the context of Main Street and built in such a way that fits within the context. 06:22:36 PM (00:26:14) Jeff Ball, 323 South Wallace, asked for the Board Members, as individuals or as a board, to recommend the City Commission to deny the Black Olive project because it is the wrong project in the wrong place. He made a comment regarding a change of the NCOD in the Code although the details were not audible in the video, but he specified the importance of the “transitions” section. He discussed the placement of the change in zoning lines that split some blocks in half and the implementations the new code could have on these streets. He explained his take on ADUs (accessory dwelling units) and their importance throughout people’s lives. He requested the circle of public notice get bigger (300’) and that a 4’x4’ bright fluorescent sign for 60 days in advance to ensure all eyes have the chance to see the notice sign. 06:29:46 PM (00:33:24) Eileen Hosking, 514 East Davis Street, agreed that transitions should be a part of Code in every context. Putting a wall between her neighborhood and downtown (high-rise apartments) would disconnect the north end to the downtown. She encouraged the Board to look carefully at the Code changes. 06:32:29 PM (00:36:07) John Hosking, 514 East Davis, stated it would be a travesty to surround downtown with tall buildings and explained the reasons why he believed this to be the case. He encouraged the Board to preserve the historic nature of the town. He said that bringing more people downtown will only crowd downtown and make it uncomfortable. 06:34:53 PM (00:38:31) Jackie Pursons, 310 East Koch, requested that the Board deny the approval of the Black Olive project. She explained that 4 stories was a good idea and could be nice. With respect to the ADUs, she agreed with the vision from Jeff Ball (earlier public comment) about the importance and use of an ADU and would prefer to see ADUs over the Black Olive project. Parking at the Black Olive project is a major concern. 06:38:12 PM (00:41:50) Stewart Mitchell, 260 East Koch, agreed with all previous comments. He reminisced on the struggles of the year and the NCOD Guidelines. He addressed the issue of notice period for the amendment of the NCOD Guidelines and the importance of clarity/blatancy of the notices. He believes there was corruption in the process and counter to what Bozeman is supposed to be about. He wants growth, but does not want high-rise buildings in the downtown when there are vacant lots on North 7th that are adjacent to other services. He spoke about other issues in the city that include affordability, vacant homes, enrollment rates at MSU, parking, etc. He explained that downtown businesses will be starved of customers and downtown events will be starved of attendees when Black Olive tenants will flood the streets for their own parking and there will be no space for people to park who live beyond walking distance. F. Action Items 1. 08:17:44 PM (02:21:22) Election of vice-chair 08:18:12 PM (02:21:50) MOTION: To elect Jeanne Wilkinson as Vice Chair. 08:18:17 PM (02:21:55) MOTION SECONDED: by Board Member Eric Karshner. 08:18:19 PM (02:21:57) VOTE: All those in favor: Motion passes unanimously. 2. Discussion of topics for board retreat • Board Objectives 08:11:07 PM (02:14:45) Board decided to move this discussion to the October meeting. 3. Recommendation to City Commission on re-adoption of Subchapter 4B of the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. • Memo • Amending Resolution 4323 • Original Resolution 4598 06:45:59 PM (00:49:37) Planner Chris Saunders, introduced the action item and the location where the Guidelines would affect (B-3 zoning district). He explained the process the City Commission will be taking to look at the 4B Guidelines and the role that this Board has within the process. Other Boards that have reviewed this or will be reviewing this were stated. 06:52:39 PM (00:56:17) Saunders responded to a question by stating that this document is related, but separate from the UDC. 06:54:36 PM (00:58:14) Saunders spoke about the memo, gave a definition of compatible development, what the policy discussion tonight should be about (legislative, not quasi-judicial). 06:58:18 PM (01:01:56) Clarification on the process was requested from Saunders. A gentleman contributed to the discussion of the process and how it relates to the law suit. 07:02:36 PM (01:06:14) Board Member Jeanne Wilkinson spoke about the process from the 2006 ordinance that adopted the original guidelines in 2006 including Boards who provided comment and public process. She discussed subchapter 4B and the timeline of how these guidelines have evolved, and how 4B was adopted. Wilkinson provided her opinion of what the Board should recommend. 07:13:49 PM (01:17:27) A Board Member stated that having a Historic Preservation Officer would be very important to the Board. 07:15:46 PM (01:19:24) Saunders explained in more detail what precipitated the changes in sub-chapter 4B and why the standards were created. He gave background for how the guidelines were created. 07:21:21 PM (01:24:59) A question was asked about the Secretary of the Interior guideline and what is and is not recommended. Saunders explained what interpretation the Commission will have to make for the language in the guidelines. 07:23:31 PM (01:27:09) A Board Member sought clarification on commercial and residential zoned lots in relation to the transition of development. Saunders responded and explained the expectation of the interface between the zones. 07:26:20 PM (01:29:58) A Board Member handed out a document to the Board and asked Saunders what the governing document would be for residential character areas if 4B was eliminated. A statement was given regarding the guidelines and detailed some of the contents of the guidelines from Chapter 3. He discussed transition zones and provided specifics for what transition zones should look like and what quantifiable qualities they should have. 07:34:36 PM (01:38:14) A citizen asked for clarification on the process regarding how the 4B guidelines will be changing or adopted. A discussion of how the Board influences the Commission vote was had and the role the Board has in advising the Commission. The language of block character was also discussed by Board Members and Planner Saunders. 07:41:03 PM (01:44:41) A Board Member recommended that they start over and rewrite/develop different guidelines. He also spoke about growth in Bozeman. Another Member discussed the idea of “infill”. 07:46:26 PM (01:50:04) A gentleman spoke in support of growth and infill and the reasoning behind why he believes it can be a good thing. A woman discussed her ideas for how the guidelines should be reviewed and revised. 07:51:53 PM (01:55:31) A Board Member makes a suggestion that the Board recommend the City Commission not approve or readopt Resolution 4598...rather, initiate a 12-week public process to rewrite sub-chapter 4B. Members discussed the specificity of the 12-week public process comment. 07:54:19 PM (01:57:57) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered public comment and all of the information presented, I move to recommend the City Commission not affirm and readopt Resolution 4598 which adopted subchapter 4B design guidelines for commercial development within the neighborhood conservation overlay district specifically B-3 halo (including the amendment incorporated in sub-chapter 4B by Resolution 4323 regarding an exemption from setback and height transition policies if abutting commercially zoned and residentially zoned lots under unified ownership and are being developed under a Master Site Plan) into the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district. Rather, recommend initiating public process to rewrite sub-chapter 4B. This process should include a neighborhood working group, at least 2 public workshops and favorable recommendations for Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board and Zoning Commission. 07:55:51 PM (01:59:29) MOTION SECONDED. 07:55:56 PM (01:59:34) VOTE: Motion passes. 07:57:07 PM (02:00:45) A Board Member spoke on the motion and re-enforcing the rest of the NCOD guidelines until the rewrite of 4B happens. Saunders spoke about what the City Commission agenda items will be on Monday. 08:15:40 PM (02:19:18) MOTION: Having reviewed and considered the proposal, public comment and all of the information presented, I move to encourage the Commissionners to review the Secretary of Interior’s 2017 Historic Preservation guidelines in relation to the NCOD and to prioritize the NCOD guidelines as originally written without 4B to avoid compromising the values and historical character within the NCOD guidelines. For example, the Secretary of Interior’s standards do not recommend adding new construction that result in the diminutions or loss of the historic character of the building including its design, materials, location or setting (page 162). Furthermore, the Secretary of Interior’s standards do not recommend constructing a new building on a historic property or on an adjacent site that is much larger than a historic building. 08:16:57 PM (02:20:35) MOTION SECONDED. Individual not on camera. 08:17:03 PM (02:20:41) VOTE: All those in favor: motion passes unanimously. G. FYI/Discussion 1. 08:06:52 PM (02:10:30) Update on Historic Preservation Specialist arrival 2. Board questions and general discussion 08:19:46 PM (02:23:24) Discussion on who can attend the Monday Commission meeting. 08:24:58 PM (02:28:36) MOTION : Move to appoint Board Member Eric Karshner to speak on behalf of the Board at the Monday Commission Meeting. 08:25:02 PM (02:28:40) MOTION SECONDED: Motion seconded by Michael Wallner (Chair) 08:25:07 PM (02:28:45) VOTE: All those in favor: motion passes unanimously. H. 08:29:13 PM (02:32:51) Adjournment For more information please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 406-582-2260 Preservation Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn (TDD 582-2307). pr e p Ro b As s ww w an d Al tDe s ww w pr ep a r e d fo r Ci t y o f B o z e m a n M o n t a n a De p a r tm e n t o f T ra n s p o r ta t i o n BOZEMANTR EX I S T I N G A N D PR O J E C T E D C O N D I T I O N S Te c h n ic a l M e m o r a n d u m FI N A L BO Z E M A N TM P TR A N SPORT A TION M A STER PLAN Ma y 23 20 1 6 2 2 3 2U n s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s LO S fo r tw o w a y s to p T W S cont ro lle d in te r s e ctio ns a r e b a s e d o n the d e la y e xp e r ie n ce d b y e a ch mo v e m e n t in d ivid ua in t e r s ect i o ns rat h e r th an o n t h e av e r a g e s t o p p e d d e la y pe r v e h ic le a t the int e r se ctio n T h is d iffe r e nce fro m th e m e t h o in t e r s ect i o ns is n e ces s a ry s ince th e op e r a t ing ch aract e r i s t ics of s t o p co n t rolle d i nte rs e ct ion are s u b s tantia lly d i ffe re n t an d p e rce p tio n s a re e n tir e ly d iffe re n t For tw o w ay s to p c o n t ro lle d inte rse ctio n s the th r o u g h tr a ffi c on t h e m a jo r u n ex p e r i e n ce s n o d e la y at the int e rs e ctio n C o n v e rse ly v e h ic les tu rn i n g le ft f ro m th e m in o r s tree t e xp e rie n ce m o re d e lay mo v e m e n ts a n d a t tim e ca n e xp e r ie n ce sig n i fica n t d e la y V e h icle s o n th e m in o r s t re e t w h ich a re tu r n ing rig h t o r g o in g st re e t e xp erie n ce le s s d e la y tha n t h o se tur n ing lef t f ro m t h e sam e a p p r o a ch D u e to t h is s i tu at i o n the L O S i s b as e d o n in c u rr e d a t t h e w o r s t p e r fo r m ing m o v e m e n t Fo r a ll w a y st o p A W S a n d ro u nd ab o ut co n tro lled in te rse cti o n s LO S is b a s e d o n ave r a g e ve h icle de la y e xp e rie nce d a me t h o d o lo g y is s i m ila r to t h a t o f si g n alize d in t e r se c tio n s T h e r e s u lts o f th e LO S a n alysis fo r t h e un s ig na lize d inte rs e c Ta b le 2 7 T h e e xisti ng in t e r s e c tio n LO S is s h o w n in Fi g u res 2 2 0 D e ta il e d r e s u lts f o r in d ivid ua l turn i n g m o v e m e n ts a Ap p e n d ix A BO Z E M A N TM P TR A N SPORT A TION M A STER PLAN Ma y 23 20 1 6 Ta b le 2 7 U ns ig n a liz e d Inte rs e ctio n L ev e l o f S erv ice ID In te rs e c t io n Tr a f fic Co n tro l AM P eak H o u r PM P e a k De la y s ec LO S De la y s e c 01 Fe r gu so n A venu e an d Babc o ck S tree t TW S 50 6 F 67 4 02 Fo wler Aven u e and B abcoc k Str eet TW S 20 5 C 45 0 07 19 th Aven ue and G olden stein La n e TW S 21 4 C 18 1 09 Ma n e ly R oad an d G rif fin D rive TW S 28 3 D 20 3 11 St o ry M ill Ro ad an d B ridg er D r ive TW S 17 6 C 18 0 12 Wi lls o n A ven u e a nd P e ach Street TW S 14 5 B 18 9 13 Ro u se A venu e an d Peach St re et TW S 81 0 F 74 4 18 Ha g gert y Lan e a n d M ain Street TW S 78 9 F 51 9 4 19 Wi lls o n A v en u e an d Co lle ge Stre et TW S 45 4 E 56 1 20 Hi g h la n d B ou levard a n d Ellis Stre et TW S 35 1 E 93 0 21 So urd ou g h Road and Kag y B o u le v ard TW S 78 2 F 10 3 4 22 Hi g h la n d B ou levar d a n d K ag y B oule vard TW S 72 7 F 59 8 23 Wa go n W he el R oa d an d 3rd Aven ue AW S 15 3 C 9. 1 24 11 th Aven ue and Co lleg e Street R ou n d ab out 8 3 A 14 8 25 11 th Aven ue and G ra n t Street AW S 10 6 B 15 8 26 11 th Aven ue and Lin co ln S tree t A W S 11 2 B 14 4 28 8th A ven u e an d Co llege S t re et AW S 12 9 B 17 9 29 7th A v en u e an d G ran t Stre et A W S 9 2 A 10 3 30 7th A ven u e an d K a gy B oulevard TW S 87 2 F 71 1 31 Va lley Cen te r S p u r an d Fro ntag e Ro ad TW S 15 9 C 25 0 32 Va lley Cen ter S pu r an d Valle y Ce nter Ro ad TW S 18 8 C 19 7 33 Ne lso n Road an d Fron tag e Ro ad TW S 19 4 C 19 7 34 19 th Aven ue and I 9 0 EB Ram p TW S 41 5 E 91 8 45 19 th Av e n u e an d G raf S tre e t TW S 17 4 C 16 1 46 Ha rper P uc ket t R o ad an d Baxt e r La ne TW S 11 0 B 11 2 47 Fl anders M ill Road an d B axte r Lane TW S 13 7 B 16 0 48 Da vis L a ne a nd Baxter Lan e AW S 54 6 F 32 8 49 La urel P ar k wa y a n d D u rston Road A W S 10 6 B 11 2 51 Fl a n ders M ill Road an d D u rst on Road TW S 26 3 D 34 8 52 Fe r gu so n A venu e an d D u rston Ro ad AW S 17 9 C 25 4 53 Fo wler Aven u e and D urs ton R oad TW S 14 6 B 16 8 54 Co tton w o o d Roa d a n d B ab co ck Stre et TW S 17 0 C 23 9 56 7th A v en u e an d B a xter L ane TW S 25 4 D 23 5 59 27 th Aven ue and Oak S t re e t TW S 25 9 D 34 1 60 Da vis Street an d O a k S t re e t TW S 46 6 E 26 5 BO Z E M A N TM P TR A N SPORT A TION M A STER PLAN Ma y 23 20 1 6 Fi g u re 2 20 E x istin g Inte rs ectio n L ev e l o f S e rv ic e 90 90 19 1 86 411 345 20 5 34 5 23 5 19 1 S19THAVEHIGHLANDBLVDS3RDAVEWILLSONAVE GRIFFIN DR KAGY BLVD N11THAVE DURSTONRD OAK ST COLLEGE ST BOZEMAN TRAIL RD BAXTER LN BABCOCK ST E VALLEY CENTER RD PEACH ST MENDENHALL ST SCHURCHAVESPRINGHILLRDS11THAVECOTTONWOODRDS8THAVE HUFFINELN FRONTAGERD ROUSEAVE BRIDGER DR MA IN ST BRIDGER CANYON RD N7THAVEN19THAVE DURSTON RD S3RDAVE GRAF ST S27THAVEFOWLERLN SOURD OUGH RD TAYABESHOCKUPRDFORTELLISRD HAGGERTYLN S7THAVES6THAVE OAK ST N15THAVEGOOCHHILLRDFERGUSONAVEDAVISLNN27THAVES23RDAVELST MCILHATTANRD STORYMILLRDMANLEYRDHIDDENVALLEYRDHARPERPUCKETTRDLOVELN BABCOCKST TAMARACKST CATAMOUNT ST CATTAIL ST GARFIELDST LINCOLNST GRANTST CLEVELANDST STUCKYRD GRAF ST BLACKWOODRD GOLDENSTEIN LN B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C B B B C C B B C C C C C C D D C C C C D C B B B B C C F F C E C C D C C C B C F F E F E F F F F F B C B C A B F F C CC C C C E F C C B C F D B C D D C D B C C C D C D D E D F F B B D B C A A B C C C B B B B B A B C A A BO Z E M A N TM P TR A N SPORT A TION M A STER PLAN Ma y 23 20 1 6 ID In t e rs e c tio n AM P eak H o u r PM P e a k H o u r De lay s e c LO S De lay s e c LO S 42 19 th A v e nu e an d Babc o ck S treet Da t a Un available 35 5 D 43 19 th A ve nu e an d Ko c h S tree t 12 7 B 16 3 B 44 19 th A ve nu e an d C olleg e S tree t 30 1 C 37 8 D 45 19 th Av enue a nd Gra f S treet 66 2 E 22 7 C 48 Da v is Lane a nd Bax ter L ane 18 2 B 14 2 B 49 La u rel Pa rkw ay and D u rston R oa d 19 0 B 13 7 B 50 Cottonw ood R oa d and Durs to n R oad 89 5 F 70 2 E 54 Co ttonw ood R oa d and Ba b cock Street 32 2 C 52 8 D 55 19 th A ve nu e an d Baxter Lane 7 1 7 E 69 9 E 57 7th Aven u e and Oak Stre e t 27 5 C 39 7 D 58 15 th A ve nu e an d O ak Street 1 6 6 B 2 2 5 C 59 27 th A v e n ue and O a k S tre et 42 7 4 F 32 1 4 F 61 Ro us e A ven ue a n d O ak Street 1 8 9 B 1 6 9 B 62 19 th A ve nu e an d Kagy B ou levard 31 3 C 42 5 D 63 Wi llso n A ven u e 3rd Aven ue a nd K ag y B ou lev ard 2 8 8 C 3 0 3 C No te Bo ld in tersection n a m es den ot e intersec t io n s w ith fu tu re co n fig ura tion s Ta b le 3 2 Proje c te d U n signa lize d In te rs e ctio n L e v e l o f S e rv ice ID In te rs e c tio n Tr af fic Co n tro l AM P e a k H o u r PM P e a k H De la y s e c LO S De la y s e c 01 Fe rg u son A ve nu e an d B abc ock S treet TW S 14 4 1 F EC B 02 Fo w ler Aven ue and B ab co ck Street TW S 2 5 8 D 83 6 07 19 th A v enue a n d G old enste in La ne TW S 33 8 D 28 6 09 Ma ne ly Ro ad an d G riffin Drive TW S 3 3 6 6 F 67 5 11 St ory M ill R o a d and Brid ger Dr ive TW S 32 3 D 34 1 12 Wi llso n A venu e an d Pe ach Street TW S 1 7 8 C 41 8 18 Ha gg er ty Lan e an d M ain S tre et TW S 47 3 6 F 3, 131 6 19 Wi llso n A venu e an d C olle ge S t re e t TW S 56 6 F 10 5 4 20 Hi gh lan d Bou leva rd an d Ellis S tree t TW S 83 8 F 2, 083 4 21 So urdou g h Ro ad and K agy Bo ule va rd TW S 1, 42 7 8 F EC B 22 Hi gh lan d Bou leva rd a n d Ka gy B o ulevard TW S EC B F 1, 392 0 23 Wa gon W hee l R oad an d 3 rd A ven ue AW S 10 8 B 9. 1 24 11 th A ven ue a nd Co lle ge Stre et Ro u ndab out 11 1 B 85 9 25 11 th A ven ue a nd G ra n t Str e et AW S 22 3 C 23 4 6 26 11 th A ven ue a n d Linco ln S treet AW S 30 1 D 10 3 2 28 8 th A venu e an d C olleg e S tree t AW S 20 3 C 99 1 BO Z E M A N TM P TR A N SPORT A TION M A STER PLAN Ma y 23 20 1 6 ID In te rs e c tio n Tr af fic Co n tro l AM P e a k H o u r PM P e a k H De la y s e c LO S De la y s e c 29 7 th A venu e an d G ran t S t re e t AW S 26 2 D 12 3 1 31 Va lle y C en ter S pu r and Fro ntag e Ro a d TW S 1 3 1 B 20 4 32 Va lle y C e nter S p u r and Valley Cen ter Road TW S 18 5 0 F 50 0 3 33 Ne lso n Road an d F ron tage Road TW S 1 9 3 C 22 2 46 Ha rpe r P u ck ett R o ad a n d B axte r La n e Ro u ndab out 14 3 B 38 9 47 Fl a n d er s M ill Road an d Bax te r Lan e TW S 18 8 C 31 7 51 Fl ande rs M ill Roa d a nd D u rsto n R o a d Ro u ndab out 14 0 B 16 2 52 Fe rgus o n Av e n u e a nd Durs ton R oad Ro u ndab out 39 9 F 37 4 53 Fo w ler Aven ue and D urs to n R oad TW S 30 0 D 43 7 56 7 th A venu e an d Baxter Lane TW S 14 3 5 F 20 6 3 60 D a vis S tree t and O a k S tre e t Ro u ndabo ut 3 0 0 2 F 23 0 0 No te Bo ld intersection na m es den o t e inte rsec t ions w ith fu tu re con fig uration s EC B D elay exc eed s the c om pu ta tio n al b ou nd s of th e software BO Z E M A N TM P TR A N SPORT A TION M A STER PLAN Ma y 23 20 1 6 Fi g u re 3 3 P ro je cte d Inte rse ctio n Le v e l o f Se r v ic e 90 90 191 86 411 34 5 20 5 34 5 23 5 19 1 S19THAVEHIGHLANDBLVDS3RDAVEWILLSONAVE GRIFFIN DR KAGY BLVD N11THAVE DURSTON R D OAK ST COLLEG E ST BOZEMAN TRAIL RD BAXTER LN BABCOCKST E VALLEY CENTER RD PEACHST MENDENHALL ST SCHURCHAVESPRINGHILLRDS11THAVECOTTONWOODRDS8THAVE HUFFINE LN FRONTAGERD ROUSEAVE BRIDGER DR MA IN ST BRIDGER CANYON RD N7THAVEN19THAVE DURSTON RD S3RDAVE GRAF ST S27THAVEFOWLERLN SOURDOUGHRD TAYABESHOCKUPRDFORTELLISRD HAGGERTYLN S7THAVES6THAVE OAK ST N15THAVEGOOCHHILLRDFERGUSONAVEDAVISLNN27THAVES23RDAVELST MCILHATTANRD STORYMILLRDMANLEYRDHIDDENVALLEYRDHARPERPUCKETTRDLOVELN BABCOCKST TAMARACKST CATAMOUNT ST CATTAIL ST GARFIELDST LINCOLNST GRANT ST CLEVELANDST STUCKYRD GRAFST BLACKWOODRD GOLDENSTEIN LN B B F C C C F C B B F C F C F C D C D D E D D C E E D C C B D C C C F F D F D D F F D D C E F F F F F F F F F F C F C F D F B CF F C C C D B C F E D E F F F F B B F B B A B F D C D B B C B B B F D B B E F D C F F B B D F B E C E B A B C C C C C B B Project Name: 24493 The Guthrie 5th and Villard CCOA DEM SP Project Description: 24493 The Guthrie 5th and Villard CCOA DEM SP Review Comments List Date: 12/9/2024 Addressing, Cycle 1 Comment: Once all of the requirements and conditions have been satisfied and this is approved, the individual units can be addressed. Community Housing, Cycle 1 Comment: Sec. 38.380.040.A.1.b Include the table in 38.380.020-1 in the Affordable Housing Plan. Sec. 38.380.040A.c Include the number of bedrooms in each proposed affordable home and market-rate homes. Sec. 38.380.040.A.1.e Include the location of affordable lots in the Affordable Housing Plan. Sec. 38.380.040.A.1.g Include a detailed description of requested incentives. Specifically: 38.380.030.3.f. 5) Section 38.530.050 building detail standards. Please elaborate. Sec 38.380.040.2.c Include description of shared amenities in the Affordable Housing Plan. Sec. 38.380.040.E Include the Affordable Housing Plan Application and Agreement in the Affordable Housing Plan. Please contact rmunfrada@bozeman.net Additionally, please note that the Notice of Deed Restrictions and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants must be executed prior to final SP approval. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:26 AM See updated document '09 Affordable Housing Plan' which now includes requested information. Acknowledged that the Notice of Deed Restrictions and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will be executed prior to final Site Plan Approval. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - service caps , 10 Civil Engineering Report.pdf DSSP Section V.A.6.h - Please add, that any curb boxes or valve boxes on the existing lines to be demolished and caped at the main should be removed. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:32 AM This requirement has been added to the demolition notes on Sheet C1.0, and the Engineering Report. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - cut in manhole , 10 Civil Engineering Report.pdf Please include the SS cut in manhole to the infrastructure improvements. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:32 AM This requirement has been added to the concurrent construction requirements on Sheet C1.1, and the Engineering Report. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - fire flow , 10 Civil Engineering Report.pdf DSSP Section V The water distribution system must be designed to meet the maximum day demand plus fire flow and the peak hour demand. Add fire flow. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:33 AM This information has been added to the Engineering Report. Engineering, Cycle 1 Library Comment: BMC 38.410.130. Water Adequacy: The development will need to satisfy the water adequacy code requirement prior to a future site plan approval. If sufficient water rights cant be provided to offsets the development's annual demand then a cash-in-lieu of water rights (CILWR) payment will be required. The City assesses the CILWR fee at a rate of $6,000 per acre-foot. The fee determination will take place during the site plan review, however if there are any questions or if a preliminary review is desired please contact Griffin Nielsen with the Engineering/Utilities Department directly at gnielsen@bozeman.net or (406) 582-2279. The City encourages the use of groundwater wells to supply irrigation demands, which in turn will reduce the CILWR fee. Applicant must obtain a pre-determination from the DNRC demonstrating that a well groundwater well may be permitted under Montanas exempt appropriation or that provide the water right documentation if existing prior to finalization of the CILWR fee determination. Finally, the City would like to make the owner aware of an available CILWR rebate of approximately 20% for residential units if high- efficiency fixtures (toilets, washers, and shower heads) meeting the City Water Conservation Division standards are installed. The rebate would be released at occupancy and requires an agreement defining the terms and amount rebate be finalized and executed prior to final plan approval. If the owner is interested or has any questions please reach out to Griffin Nielsen. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 2:49 PM Final approval and execution of the rebate should be completed with Griffin Nelson. Receipt of the executed agreement, fee determination, and final CILWR payment is conditional of site plan approval. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:49 AM The applicant emailed Griffin Nielsen on 10/9/24 to get a preliminary estimate for CILWR. Also attached to that email was the draft CILWR rebate form that the developer is interested in proceeding with. See updated document "25 CILWR Efficiency Rebate Agreement". The final version will be executed prior to final site plan approval. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.400.060.B.4. Level of Service Standards (LOS)- The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study that identifies that minor approaches to the intersections of North 7th Avenue with West Villard Street and West Beall Street are expected to operate with a LOS of "D". The applicant must complete a signal warrant analysis at these two locations and submit to the review authority for final determination on whether the intersections meet the City criteria for an exception or waiver for intersections with an LOS of less than "C". Also, please include conclusive correspondence with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) concerning Systems Impact along the North 7th Avenue corridor, with specific respect to the subject intersections. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/7/24 3:58 PM An acceptable warrant analysis and conclusive correspondence from MDT has been received and uploaded with this revision cycle. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM See uploaded document "28 The Guthrie Signal Warrant Study" for requested signal warrant analysis. We have been in contact with Kristina Kilta (Bozeman MDT Transportation Engineer) and she has the Signal Warrant Memo to review. A meeting is being scheduled once MDT has had time to review. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: TIS recommendations- The stop sign recommended at the access to the site on North 5th Avenue is not necessary. The stop at commercial accesses is implied. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/7/24 3:55 PM The applicant may install the stop sign in an onsite location outside of the public right of way and it must be maintained privately as part of the site. Stop sign privatization and relocation will be a condition of site plan approval. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM Understand it is not required, however for pedestrian safety we prefer to keep the stop sign per plan. The placement of the stop sign behind the sidewalk also assists with ensuring egressing vehicles do not stage on the sidewalk blocking pedestrian facilities. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: Access Spacing Memorandum - 38.400.090.H.d. Site access design - Please include a detail to the review engineer showing the left turn conflict between the access and existing alley on North 5th Avenue. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM See uploaded document "29 Access Turning Template Figure" which illustrates how left turns out of the Guthrie and out of the Alley maintain clear visions. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: Access Spacing Memorandum - 38.400.090.3.b.1 - drive access and parking stall dimensions - Please acknowledge and address the site plan deviation from standard commercial drive aisle width and parking stall length in this memorandum. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM The dimension on the previous plans was incorrect, and has been corrected. The drive aisle width is 24'. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.270.030.C.1 - Onsite or Adjacent Improvements concurrent construction criteria - The applicant must submit all outstanding concurrent construciton applicaiton deliverables, prior to concurrent construction approval and issuance of a building permit, including the following; 1. Approved infrastructure set - submitted and reviewed per the City of Bozeman Infrastructure Review Process 2. Written approval from the fire marshal 3. Irrevocable offer of dedication - see template uploaded to the City Documents file 4. Concurrent Construction Phasing Plan. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM Additional concurrent construction narration has been added to Sheet C1.1, the Civil Site Plan. The final concurrent construction criteria will be provided prior to the building permit approval. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - light pole base location , 045 - ES1.1 - ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN.pdf Is there any way this light pole base could be re-located, so the east to west drive aisle meets the minimum width for two way travel? Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:39 AM The dimension on the previous plans was incorrect, and has been corrected. The drive aisle width is 24'. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.410.060.A.2.- Easements - A 10' Public Utility Easement must be provided along the perimeter of the property along the public street(s). Please find the City Standard Public Utility Easement uploaded in the City documents file for your review, and execution. This easement must be reviewed, approved and executed by the review engineer and the City commission, and filed with the County Clerk and Recorders office, prior to site plan approval. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 4:01 PM The draft easement is adequate. Please have the ownership execute the draft and submit the executed hard copy to the review engineer for final review and approval. Site plan approval will be conditional of the review engineers final approval, City commission approval and final execution, and filing with the County Clerk and Recorders office. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:40 AM Updated easements with wording matching the City template is provided. Easements will be recorded prior to site plan approval. See document "21 Utility Easement - 10 feet" Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.410.060.A.2- Prior to further review, the applicant must provide a draft copy of the public street and utility easement granting additional right-of-way along 5th Avenue for review. The easement must use the City standard template. The template has been provided in the City Documents and Staff Reports folder. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 4:01 PM The draft easement is adequate. Please have the ownership execute the draft and submit the executed hard copy to the review engineer for final review and approval. Site plan approval will be conditional of the review engineers final approval, City commission approval and final execution, and filing with the County Clerk and Recorders office. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:41 AM Updated easements with wording matching the City template is provided. Easements will be recorded prior to site plan approval. See document "22 Public Street and Utility Easement - 4 feet" Engineering, Cycle 1 Library Comment: The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) on City standard record Form prior to site plan approval. The City Standard Template has been uploaded to the City Documents File for review and execution. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 3:53 PM Please populate the notary block in this draft, and then execute the SID waiver. Submit the owner executed hard copy to the review engineer for final review, approval and execution by the City commission and filing with the County Clerk and recorder's office. Final site plan approval is conditional of receipt and filing of the waiver with the County Clerk and Recorder. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:49 AM See updated document "17 Waiver of Right to Protest DRAFT". The final version will be recorded prior to Site Plan Approval Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - Drive Approach Detail , 018 - C1.4 - SITE DETAILS.pdf BMC 38.400.090.b. - Commercial Drive Access - Please remove the residential driveway approach detail and replace it with the City Standard Non-Residential (Commercial) Driveway approach detail prior to site plan approval and infrastructure submittal. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:51 AM The approach detail on Sheet C1.4 has been updated to a non-residential driveway approach. Engineering, Cycle 2 Markup: ENG - CCON note #1 , 015 - C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN.pdf Please confirm this note with written approval from the fire marshal, prior to concurrent construction approval and final building permit approval. The Concurrent Construction Phasing notes as written are otherwise generally acceptable. Please be advised that any delays to building construction milestones due to the inaccuracy, incompleteness, or revision of the infrastructure plan set will not be the responsibility of the City. Engineering, Cycle 2 Markup: ENG - Concurrent Construction Plan , 015 - C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN.pdf No reference to the roundabout traffic calming improvement have been made in these phasing plan notes. Include reference to the roundabout improvements in this concurrent construction plan and on this drawing conditional of site plan approval. Fire Department, Cycle 1 Comment: Provide a more comprehensive narrative for concurrent construction. Provide exhibit specifying fire lane signage. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:52 AM Additional concurrent construction narration has been added to Sheet C1.1, the Civil Site Plan. The fire lane signage has been updated on Sheet C1.7, the Signage and Striping Plan, to address the end of the fire lane. Parks Department, Cycle 1 Markup: Parks, 14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table.pdf Please add some additional narrative information on your cash in lieu request. Please include a section in the narrative that specifically requests to provide cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, cite the proper code section that allows to you make that request (Sec. 38.420.030), and then cite any criteria that you are using to justify your CILP request from the commissions ordinance. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:55 AM See updated document "14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table" for requested information. Parks Department, Cycle 1 Markup: Parks, 14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table.pdf Please see revised parkland tracking table provided in city documents folder. The current CILP value is $2.65. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:55 AM See updated document "14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table" for updated tracking table. Parks Department, Cycle 2 Comment: CILP payment must be made prior to final site plan approval. Planning, Cycle 1 Markup: Clarify office space, 004 - A0.12 - OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS -INTERIOR AMENITIES.pdf Clarify if this office space is a coworking space or an office for on site management. Office space for on site management cannot count towards open space requirements. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:56 AM The office space (room 130) has been excluded from the open space calculations. See updated drawing "004 - A0.12 - OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS -INTERIOR AMENITIES" Planning, Cycle 1 Markup: Error, 047 - ES1.3 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS PHOTOMETRICS.pdf Is the 205.7 fc an error? Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:56 AM The 205.7FC is not an error, the calculation point happened to fall directly below the wall mounted light fixture capturing the bright spot on the wall directly below the light fixture. There is no maximum level requirements for one point, and the average across the South Building Facade is 0.5FC. Planning, Cycle 1 Markup: Update narrative, 06 Project and DEM Narrative.pdf Update the narrative so that the incentives being requested aren't covered. Don't list out all incentives, just the ones that are being used and clearly state how the project is usign them. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:56 AM The narrative has been updated to clarify the incentives that are being requested, excluding those that are not being requested. See updated document "06 Project and DEM Narrative" Planning, Cycle 2 Comment: BMC section 38.340.090.D.3 applies to this application because a previous demolition, COA and Site plan application (23354) was denied in part on failure to meet criteria found in BMC section 38.340.090.C, specifically subsection 3 whether the subsequent development complies with section 38.340.050. The two-year stay [on issuance of a demolition permit] may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. BMC 38.340.090.D.3. This application, 24493, constitutes an alternative proposal that, if approved, terminates the two- year stay on issuance of a demolition permit. In addition to other relevant criteria found within Chapter 38 of the BMC, to be approved this application must demonstrate compliance with all relevant criteria within BMC division 38.340. These criteria include those found in BMC 38.340.090.C. and 38.340.050.C, D, and E. Note that subsections A and B of 38.340.050 are inapplicable because this application proposes construction of a new structure, rather than preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of an existing historic building (as provided in subsection A), or alteration to an existing building (as provided in subsection B). Additionally, subsection F is inapplicable because no tax abatement certificate of appropriateness is sought in this application. Please supplement this application with additional information regarding compliance with the relevant criteria listed above. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 11/26/24 3:19 PM See updated document "32 Certificate of Appropriateness" for detailed responses to each NCOD Guideline as requested. Reviewer Response: Sarah Rosenberg - 11/21/24 3:37 PM The document should explicitly outline the separate guidelines/subsections under each section. For instance, use headings such as A. Topic, followed by Guideline 1, Guideline 2, Guideline 3, etc. Clearly indicate how each guideline is being addressed. If a guideline is not feasible or applicable, explicitly state that—similar to how some points are explained in the accompanying narrative. Specifically, for the multi-household section, each subsection must be addressed in greater detail, clearly explaining how the requirements are being met or why they do not apply, while also demonstrating how they align with the policy introduced at the beginning of each section. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 11/20/24 11:10 AM See uploaded document "32 Certificate of Appropriateness" for responses to 38.340.050.C,D, and E. Reviewer Response: Sarah Rosenberg - 11/19/24 10:23 AM The narrative provided outlines how it addresses 38.340.090.D.3 but it also needs to include how the application demonstrates compliance with Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness. 38.340.050.C,D, and E. C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures is encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or their components and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and surrounding structures. D. When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this section, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district. Application of the design guidelines may vary by property as explained in the introduction to the design guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design for new structures or additions to existing structures, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The NCOD Design Guidelines that would be applicable to this application is chapter 2, Design Guidelines for all properties and chapter 3, design guidelines for residential character areas, multi-household design. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this chapter. Development in the NCOD must comply with all other applicable development standards of this chapter. Include an analysis on how the development complies with these criteria. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 11/13/24 8:47 AM See uploaded document "31 Early Termination of Two Year Stay" for responses. Planning, Cycle 5 Comment: Send to oversight for public notice 12/6-12/30. Solid Waste, Cycle 1 Markup: SLD Waste, 034 - A1.01 - SITE PLAN.pdf 1. must be written into covenants that it is managements responsibility to move trash containers to the tip sight on collection day. 2.tip pad must be heated. 3. must have 50 foot straight approach to the tip pad. no parking allowed within the straight approach. 4. will need a turn around for refuse truck we cannot back out onto street, Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:59 AM The Architectural Site Plan, A1.01 has been updated to show the trash loading area (tip pad) at the street, and heated sidewalk from the trash room to this location. This enables the trash to be picked up with a 50' straight approach, without entering the parking lot or requiring a turn around. Covenants will be written specifying it is management's responsibility to move trash containers to tip sight on collection day. Transportation, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.540.050.5.c: Exterior bicycle parking location should be within 50 feet of an entrance to a building and ideally a main entrance like the one on the NE corner of the project site. The two racks on the southern end of the building should be expanded to allow more short term use by more occupants or visitors. The exterior bicycle parking on the west side of the building is hidden on an alley access and is not visible from the main street. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Comment: A signed copy of the Building Permit Landscape & Irrigation Self-Certification Form (Appendix E) is necessary to receive a building permit. See the "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual" - 3.1.2 Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Comment: Prior to commencing any work, the applicant must contact the Water Conservation Division to schedule a preinstallation meeting. Include a note on the landscaping and irrigation plans that the applicant’s team will need to schedule this preinstallation meeting. See the "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual" - 3.1.2 Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Plant Factor, 022 - L 001 - Notes and Legends.pdf Deschampsia cespitosa is considered a .6 plant factor by the City of Bozeman Water Conservation Division Plant List. When the prescriptive pathway has been selected by the applicant all landscaped areas other than turf grass must consist solely of low and/or very low water vegetation (plant factor of 0.3 or less). See "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.2.1 "Landscape Design Standards", Prescriptive Landscape Design Pathway (percentage-based approach), 1), b). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:00 AM Deschampsia cespitosa has been replaced with Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' which has a 0.1 plant factor. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Riser Height, 033 - L 701 - Irrigation Details.pdf Hunter PROS-4 has a 4" riser. Overhead irrigation must use a 6â minimum riser. See âCity of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manualâ, Section 3.3.1 âIrrigation Design Standardsâ, âSprinklers/Overhead Irrigationâ, 4). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:00 AM Overhead irrigation has been revised to specify Hunter PROS-06 that uses a 6"riser. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Layout, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Current head layout does not achieve head to head coverage. Overhead irrigation spacing must be designed to achieve head to head coverage. See âCity of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manualâ, Section 3.3.1 âIrrigation Design Standardsâ, âSprinklers/Overhead Irrigationâ 5). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:00 AM The overall irrigation plan has been updated to achieve the required head to head coverage. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Sprinkler Head Hardscape Spacing, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Sprinkler heads must be spaced a minimum of 2" from hardscape edges per City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual Section 3.3.1, Sprinklers/Overhead Irrigation, 3). Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Drip Irrigation Flush, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Drip irrigation must be installed with the ability to easily flush the line. See âCity of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manualâ, Section 3.3.1 âIrrigation Design Standardsâ, âDrip Irrigationâ, 4) Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Comment: Irrigation Water Requirement (IWR) is missing. See City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual Section 3.3.3, Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design for Final Plat and Site Plan 1). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM IWR table has been included on the L600 Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Zone Flow, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Not all irrigation zones labels include their flow rate. See "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3 "Irrigation Design plan Requirements", "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 3), i). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM All irrigation zone labels now include the flow rate. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Irrigation Control Valves, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, size, and quantity of the irrigation control valves. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), g). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Irrigation control valve spec and quantities have been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Backflow Device, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, and quantity of the backflow prevention device. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), b). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Backflow preventer spec and quantity has been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Isolation Valves, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, size, and quantity of the isolation valves. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), f). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Isolation valve spec and quantities have been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Drip Irrigation Filter and Pressure Regulator, 032 - L 700 - Irrigation Details.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, size, and quantity of pressure regulators and filters for drip irrigation. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), f). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Drip pressure regulator spec and quantities have been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Drip Irrigation, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, and size of the drip irrigation that will be used. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), j). Reviewer Response: Eric Neustrup - 10/24/24 3:19 PM Make and model of drip irrigation must be included in the irrigation schedule. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), j). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:02 AM Drip irrigation spec has been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 2 Comment: Pressure regulating devices must be installed to ensure proper operation. This may be accomplished by using pressure regulators at the zone valve or integrated into the sprinkler body. See “City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards manual”, Section 3.3.1 “Irrigation Design Standards”, “System” 3). Water Rights, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.410.130. Water Adequacy: The project's estimated annual municipal demand from the project is 11.43 acre-feet. A credit volume of 01.71 acre-feet has been applied based on the historic metered demand from the properties reducing the development's demand to 9.72 acre-feet which must be offset. At the City's current CILWR fee rate of $6,000/AF the CILWR fee for the project is $58,339. Payment must be made prior to the final site plan approval. The City would like to make the owner aware of an available CILWR rebate of approximately 20% for residential units, released at occupancy if high-efficiency fixtures (toilets, washers, and shower heads) are installed. A rebate agreement template outlining the terms of the rebate offer has been uploaded. If the owner is interested please update the agreement using track changes with the owner information and send the word document to Griffin Nielsen at gnielsen@bozeman.net. If there are any questions about the agreement please reach out over email. The agreement should be finalized prior to final plan approval. Mn Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006 Abelin Traffic Services 1 of 8 Full Build-out Traffic Study Story Mill Center Bozeman, Montana This document provides information about the traffic effects from the full-build-out of the Story Mill Center development and is based off of the proposed site layout as of September 8th, 2006. The study also makes assumptions for the development of the Stockyard property. This document is intended for internal use only and will be revised once the details of each development phase have been finalized. However, the overall traffic impacts should not change. This document does not evaluate the effect of the possible Oak Street connection with East Main Street and/or Rouse Avenue. A. PROPOSED FULL BUILD-OUT DEVELOPMENT This document studies the possible traffic effects from the full build-out of the Story Mill Center. The overall development of the property will consist of eleven separate phases in five areas. A separate traffic report will be prepared for each phase of the development. In total the development will include over 1,300 homes, 100,000 s.f. of retail space, and 10,000 s.f of office space. Primary access to the site will be provided from Bryant Street, Griffin Drive, and Story Mill Road. The overall layout of the Story Mill Center subdivision is shown in Figure 1. B. TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine anticipated future traffic volumes from the proposed development. ATS used the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition). These rates are the national standard and are based on the most current information available to planners. A vehicle “trip” is defined as any trip that either begins or ends at the development site. Judging from field observations and the typical nature of residential developments, ATS determined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. The trip generation rates for the site are shown in Table 1. Note that the traffic from the existing 92 mobile homes currently located in Parcel D has been subtracted from the total trip generation from Parcel D. At full build-out the proposed development would produce 860 AM peak hour trips, 1,386 PM peak hour trips, and 12,206 daily trips. Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006 Abelin Traffic Services 4 of 8 efforts. The trip distribution at each intersection is adjusted to provide the most logical use of the intersections and to provide an overall trip distribution for the area that matches the currently observed patterns. Traffic is expected to distribute itself as follows: •55% to/from the south on Rouse Avenue, •25% to/from the west on Griffin Road, •8% to/from the east on Bridger Canyon Road, •3% to/from the north on Story Mill Road, and •9% to/from the south on Story Mill Road. Figure 2- Trip Distribution Figure 2 shows the anticipated trip distribution for the Story Mill area. It should be noted that although 55% of the overall traffic will use Rouse Avenue south of the development site, only 30% of that traffic will still be on Rouse Avenue south of Tamarack Street. Overall trip distribution characteristics and site-generated traffic are shown on figures in Appendix B. D. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT 25% Griffin Avenue Rouse Avenue Story Mill Road/ L Street Bridger Canyon Road 55% 3% 8% 9% Proposed Development Site Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006 Abelin Traffic Services 5 of 8 Using the trip generation and trip distribution numbers, ATS determined the future Level of Service for the intersections within the vicinity of the proposed development site. The anticipated LOS for traffic conditions with the proposed development is shown in Table 2. Table 2 – Level of Service Summary with Story Mill Full Build-Out AM PM Intersection Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS Bridger Drive & Story Mill* 22.5/11.5 C/B 135.4/15.7 F/C Bridger Drive & Panda Sports Intersection 22.1 C 31.4 D Rouse & Griffin** 14.5 A 24.3 C Rouse & Bryant Street*139.5/14.3 F/B 405.1/61.1 F/F Rouse & Oak Street** 15.5 B 25.3 C Rouse & Tamarack 14.8 B 23.1 C *Northbound/Southbound or Eastbound/Westbound LOS.**With Signalization, 2007. The traffic data indicates that all of the signalized intersections in this area will continue to function with minimal delay through full build-out of the Story Mill Center. However, the intersections of Story Mill Road/Bridger Drive, Panda Sports/Bridger Drive, and Rouse Avenue/Bryant Street will experience operational problems at full build-out of the property. The intersection of Rouse Avenue and Bryant Street will experience a considerable increase in traffic volumes and a poor level of service in the peak hours. The addition of extra lanes at this intersection would improve the overall delay, but the intersection would still function at poor levels of service. This intersection would likely need to be signalized prior to full build-out of the property. Signalization would likely need to occur in conjunction with the development of the southwest corner of the property (Phase 4). Once signalized, the intersection will operate at LOS B. A traffic signal at Bryant Street would be 400 feet from the MRL tracks and I-90 overpass which is the same distance as between the MRL tracks and the new Oak Street traffic signal. The Montana Department of Transportation will not generally approve a traffic signal unless one or more traffic signal warrants are met. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains eight separate traffic signal warrants. One or more of these warrants should be met before a traffic signal is installed at an intersection. In order to evaluate these signal warrants it is necessary to assemble 24-hour traffic volume data, pedestrian volumes, and historic crash trends for an intersection. The individual traffic signal warrants include: Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006 Abelin Traffic Services 8 of 8 These traffic calming measures could include strategically placed STOP signs, curb bulbs, traffic circles, or other measures. None of these measures are recommended at this time, but traffic volumes and speed along Wallace Avenue should be monitored through the development of the Story Mill Center and appropriate traffic calming measures should be installed if warranted. E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Story Mill Center will affect the traffic conditions at the intersections along Griffin Drive. However, most of the major intersections along this corridor are already signalized or will be signalized shortly as part of other projects going on in this area. The Story Mill Development will require the addition of two signalized intersections in this area and variety of turn lanes to help maintain the flow of traffic. The recommendations for the overall development of the Story Mill Center include: •Signalize the intersection of Bryant Street/Rouse Avenue once signalization warrants are met (end of Phase 4). Install separated left- and right-turn lanes on Bryant Street. •Signalize the intersection of Story Mill Road/Bridger Drive once signalization warrants are met (near the end of construction). Install separated left- and right-turn lanes on Story Mill Road. •Add a separated left-turn lane for westbound traffic on Griffin Drive at Rouse Avenue. •Create an additional internal roadway extension from Area D to Griffin Drive near thewestern edge of the development. If this new link can not be constructed it would bedesirable to restrict traffic movements to right-out only onto Bridger Drive at this location. •Monitor traffic volumes and speeds along Wallace Avenue and install appropriate traffic calming measures if needed. Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andy Epple, Director of Planning and Community Development Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Bozeman Brewery Appeal Application #C-08001, an Appeal of an Administrative Code Determination, made pursuant to Section 18.66.010 C.5. BMC, which seeks to overturn the Director of Planning’s determination that Section 18.44.060 D. Level of [Street] Service Standards may generally be applied to “off-site road improvements.” MEETING DATE: Monday, April 21, 2008 @ 6:00 p.m. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission deny this appeal application on the grounds that the City’s practice of applying level of street service standards to off-site road improvements is fundamental to the orderly development of the City and critical to protection of public health and safety. BACKGROUND: The Bozeman Brewery project is a mixed use, urban redevelopment project located at 801 and 803 North Wallace Avenue in the Northeast Historic Mixed Use Zoning District. The project consists of the demolition/rehabilitation of the historic Lehrkind Brewery building and construction of 16,900 square feet of office space and 39 residential condominium units. The project was reviewed extensively through the Site Plan Review process, and gained Preliminary Approval from the City Commission on August 20, 2007. Condition Number 18 of Preliminary Approval of the Bozeman Brewery project states: “A detailed Traffic Study Report for the proposed development, including a level of service evaluation, shall be provided.” A traffic study report was subsequently turned in by the applicant, which indicated that the intersection at Rouse and Peach operates at a level of service below “D” and that this development will further impact the intersection. Section 18.44.060 D. BMC states: “Under no conditions will less than level of service ‘D’ be accepted” with regard to street improvement standards. Applying this Code provision essentially restricts any new development in the area that will further impact this intersection until improvements are made. In this case, the Bozeman Brewery project may not proceed until intersection improvements to Rouse and Peach are made, either by the applicant, a group of property owners in the area, the City or the State. Only the State is actively moving ahead with plans to improve North Rouse, including intersection improvements at Peach. But MDT is not expected to move forward with any actual construction on the project before 2011 at the earliest. This time frame does not work well for the applicants. Because the applicant has not mitigated the impacts their development proposal will have on a failing intersection, their application for Final Site Plan approval has been denied by staff. This Appeal Application is one of two the applicant has filed in this case. (The other “companion” appeal, Application Number C-08002, will be heard separately, immediately after this hearing is concluded.) In this Appeal, the applicant requests “…an appeal of the administrative interpretation regarding application of UDO section 18.44.060 D. to the final site plan, seeking a determination that it does not apply in this case,” i.e., that the City has no authority to apply level of service standards to off-site intersection improvements. Their arguments are four-fold: 1) No provision of the UDO requires developers to make off-site road improvements; 2) The intersection at Peach Street and North Rouse Avenue is already failing, and it would be inequitable to force them, whose development will have 0.6% impact on the intersection, to correct existing failing conditions not of their making; 3) The improvements the City are contemplating are extremely costly and out of proportion with the scale of the development and level of impacts; and 4) As a practical matter, requiring a developer to proceed with intersection improvements at this time is inefficient since MDT will be making the improvements as part of the larger North Rouse project, scheduled for 2011 or beyond. Staff would respond to each of these points as follows: 1) Numerous provisions of the UDO require that off-site traffic impacts be evaluated and mitigated in conjunction with development proposals. Section 18.34.090 5., Under Site Plan Review Criteria, references “The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions.” In section 18.34.090 6., also under Site Plan Review Criteria, the need to address the design of the vehicular circulation systems “both within the site and between properties and activities with the neighborhood area” is set forth, as is adequate connection and integration of the vehicular transportation system “in adjacent developments and general community.” As mentioned earlier, Section 18.44.060 D., under Street Improvement Standards, establishes that “…under no conditions will less than level of service “D” be accepted.” Section 18.78.080 B.9., by reference, requires Traffic Impact Studies include evaluation of “All arterial-arterial, collector-collector and arterial-collector intersections within one mile of the site.” Clearly, these Code provisions require that City officials consider impacts to off-site intersections, and further require mitigation if the level of service is less than “D.” In fact, the City has invoked these provisions on numerous occasions in the past, and held up development proposals until necessary improvements were completed. Projects such as Laurel Glen, Harvest Creek, Traditions and Flanders Creek, and the Knolls, among others, have all been subject to these provisions. 2) The plain language in the Code stating that “under no conditions will less than level of service “D” be accepted” does not give staff or the Commission much leeway in interpretation. Any level of additional impact to an already failing intersection is unacceptable according to the Code. The proper avenue for relief from Code requirements that applicants feel are not achievable is to seek a variance. 3) The City is not putting the burden of making the costly improvements to the intersection at Peach and Rouse entirely on the applicant. They can seek methods of funding the improvements through other means (creation of SID, or inclusion on Impact Fee Capital Improvement program, for instance), or wait until others complete the project. In protecting public health and safety, knowingly allowing a new development to further aggravate an already failing intersection, even to a slight degree, would be contrary to the Code. 4) The earliest MDT has said their project will proceed is 2011, and it is likely to be considerably farther out in time than that. If the Bozeman Brewery project is allowed to proceed without the intersection improvements being made, we would have an extended period of time where more traffic is put through the intersection before a basic safety is resolved. Again, that would be contrary to Code. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: This is one of two Appeal Applications which have been filed by the owners of this project regarding the need for intersection improvements at the intersection of Peach Street and North Rouse Avenue. Both appeals must be acted upon by the Commission. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approval of this Appeal Application would have significant impacts on the City’s CIP budget, since it would take away the City’s ability to require failing intersections to be upgraded prior to further development occurring in a given area. The current practice ensures, to some extent, that “development pays its own way.” Overturning this long standing policy and practice would result in the citizens of Bozeman having to bear more of the costs of development. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Andy Epple, Director of Planning Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager Attachment(s): Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andy Epple, Director of Planning and Community Development Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Bozeman Brewery Appeal Application #C-08002, an Appeal of an Administrative Project Decision, made pursuant to Section 18.66.010 C.5. BMC, which seeks to overturn the Director of Planning’s decision to disapprove the Final Site Plan for the Bozeman Brewery project based on application of Section 18.44.060 D. Level of [Street] Service Standards to said project, finding that said service standards are not met at the off-site intersection location of North Rouse Avenue and Peach Street. MEETING DATE: Monday, April 21, 2008 @ 6:00 p.m. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission deny this appeal application on the grounds that the City’s practice of applying level of street service standards to off-site road improvements is fundamental to the orderly development of the City and critical to protection of public health and safety, and that denying a Final Site Plan based on further impacts to an already failing is appropriate. BACKGROUND: The Bozeman Brewery project is a mixed use, urban redevelopment project located at 801 and 803 North Wallace Avenue in the Northeast Historic Mixed Use Zoning District. The project consists of the demolition/rehabilitation of the historic Lehrkind Brewery building and construction of 16,900 square feet of office space and 39 residential condominium units. The project was reviewed extensively through the Site Plan Review process, and gained Preliminary Approval from the City Commission on August 20, 2007. Condition Number 18 of Preliminary Approval of the Bozeman Brewery project states: “A detailed Traffic Study Report for the proposed development, including a level of service evaluation, shall be provided.” A traffic study report was subsequently turned in by the applicant, which indicated that the intersection at Rouse and Peach operates at a level of service below “D” and that this development will further impact the intersection. Section 18.44.060 D. BMC states: “Under no conditions will less than level of service ‘D’ be accepted” with regard to street improvement standards. Applying this Code provision essentially restricts any new development in the area that will further impact this intersection until improvements are made. In this case, the Bozeman Brewery project may not proceed until intersection improvements to Rouse and Peach are made, either by the applicant, a group of property owners in the area, the City or the State. Only the State is actively moving ahead with plans to improve North Rouse, including intersection improvements at Peach. But MDT is not expected to move forward with any actual construction on the project before 2011 at the earliest. This time frame does not work well for the applicants. Because the applicant has not mitigated the impacts their development proposal will have on a failing intersection, their application for Final Site Plan approval has been denied by staff. This Appeal Application is one of two the applicant has filed in this case. (The other “companion” appeal, Application Number C-08001, will have already been heard by the time this application is up for hearing.) In this Appeal, the applicant requests “…an appeal of what will be the resulting decision on the final site plan – an approval subject to compliance with the provision or a denial of the plan – and a request that the final site plan be approved by the City Commission without the condition.” In other words, the applicant asks that, in the event the Commission finds that level of service standards for off-site intersection improvements can be invoked in Site Plan reviews (the subject of the preceding hearing), the Commission overturn staff’s decision to deny the Final Site Plan application for the Bozeman Brewery project. Their arguments are three-fold: 1) The intersection at Peach Street and North Rouse Avenue is already failing, and it would be inequitable to force them, whose development will have 0.6% impact on the intersection, to correct existing failing conditions not of their making; 2) The improvements the City are contemplating are extremely costly and out of proportion with the scale of the development and level of impacts; and 3) As a practical matter, requiring a developer to proceed with intersection improvements at this time is inefficient since MDT will be making the improvements as part of the larger North Rouse project, scheduled for 2011 or beyond. Staff would respond to each of these points as follows: 1) The plain language in the Code stating that “under no conditions will less than level of service “D” be accepted” does not give staff or the Commission much leeway in interpretation. Any level of additional impact to an already failing intersection is unacceptable according to the Code. The proper avenue for relief from Code requirements that applicants feel are not achievable is to seek a variance. 2) The City is not putting the burden of making the costly improvements to the intersection at Peach and Rouse entirely on the applicant. They can seek methods of funding the improvements through other means (creation of SID, or inclusion on Impact Fee Capital Improvement program, for instance), or wait until others complete the project. In protecting public health and safety, knowingly allowing a new development to further contribute traffic to an already failing intersection, even to a slight degree, would be contrary to the Code. 3) The earliest MDT has said their project will proceed is 2011, and it is likely to be considerably farther out in time than that. If the Bozeman Brewery project is allowed to proceed without the intersection improvements being made, we would have an extended period of time where more traffic is put through the intersection before a basic safety issue is resolved. Again, that would be contrary to Code. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: This is one of two Appeal Applications which have been filed by the owners of the Bozeman Brewery project regarding the need for intersection improvements at the intersection of Peach Street and North Rouse Avenue. Both appeals must be acted upon by the Commission. Staff believes this application would be better addressed through the filing of a variance request seeking relief from compliance with Section 18.44.060 D. rather than through the filing of this appeal application. Variance applications give staff and the Commission (or Board of Adjustment) the opportunity to consider unique circumstances in granting relaxation of Code provisions, rather than just waiving regulatory requirements. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approval of this Appeal Application could have significant impacts on the City’s CIP budget, since we would expect others to seek a waiver from the Level of Service standard requirements of the Code. The current practice of requiring infrastructure improvements to be concurrent with development proposals helps ensure, to some extent, that “development pays its own way.” Overturning this long standing policy and practice would result in the citizens of Bozeman having to bear more of the costs of development. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Andy Epple, Director of Planning Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager Attachment(s): MEMORANDUM April 9, 2008 To: Andy Epple, Planning Director From: Dustin Johnson, Project Engineer Re: Bozeman Brewery – Project traffic engineering summary Major Site Plans/Subdivisions with potential traffic impacts to Northeast Bozeman: August, 2005 – Staff review of Freight Building/Mill Street Lofts (Traffic study required, no deficiencies identified, no intersections with Rouse Avenue were included in the traffic study). October, 2005 – Staff review of Legends II subdivision (Traffic study required, deficiencies identified at intersection of Rouse and Griffin, signal installed). November 2005 – Staff review of Northside Development (Traffic study required, deficiencies identified at intersection of Rouse and Oak, signal installed). August 2007 – Staff review of Bozeman Brewery (Traffic study required, deficiencies identified at intersection of Rouse and Peach). Engineering Summary: The proposed Bozeman Brewery Site plan identified the project will have 16,900 square feet of single office space and 39 townhouse units. During the DRC review of the Brewery staff required a full traffic study. The traffic study estimated there will be 425 total weekday trip ends at this development at full build-out. Given the location, size, and use of this proposed site staff felt it had the potential to impact surrounding traffic patterns. The traffic study focused on the Level of Service (LOS) of three major intersections that could be impacted by this development, Rouse and Tamarack, Rouse and Peach, and Tamarack and Wallace. In the study the intersection of Rouse and Peach was identified as suffering from a failing level of service. UDO section 18.44.060.D states “under no conditions will less than level of service ‘D’ be accepted.” This provision restricts any further development in the area that will further impact this intersection until improvements are made. During the informal review of this development, in November of 2006, neighbors raised concerns that traffic from the site could further impact an already existing traffic problem for North Wallace Avenue. A condition was drafted that stated: Wallace Avenue is currently registered in the traffic calming program. The developer will need to work with the North East Neighborhood Association (NENA) in contributing to the ongoing traffic calming measures being implemented and to minimize the traffic impacts on Wallace Avenue. In order to minimize traffic impacts on Wallace Avenue, traffic from this development would have to be routed to Rouse Avenue (the nearest Principal Arterial). The two streets connecting this development to Rouse Avenue are Tamarack Street to the north and Peach Street to the south. Provided that the traffic study indicated that there were deficiencies at the intersection of Rouse and Peach, and the study met the warrant analysis for the City and MDT to justify a signal and/or other intersection improvements, it would indicate that the traffic study for this development was reasonable. The argument that it is unjust to restrict development at this site because of surrounding intersection deficiencies, but allow a previous development, the Freight Building/Mill Street Lofts, to avoid these restrictions is invalid. The Freight Building Site Plan was reviewed in 2005. Not soon after the application of the Freight Building neighbors starting expressing concern over new developments that would utilize Wallace Ave. With new developments in the Northeast section of town, such as the Northside development, Legends II subdivision, and the Bozeman Brewery staff started taking a closer look at potential areas of congestion and deficiency. The findings of staff are supported by the UDO, MDT, and the applicants own traffic study. If the applicant feels the restriction creates an excessive burden based on the size of their development they have the right to request a variance and plead their case before the City Commission. The requirements and conditions set forth in previous developments in the area have no bearing on this project. Please refer to the Bound Copy of The Bozeman Brewery Applicant Submittal A digital version is also included on your Digital Packet CD. Thanks! The Lakes at Valley West Preliminary Plat: Phase 4 March 2017 THE LAKES AT VALLEY WEST TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUBMITTED TO: CITY OF BOZEMAN JANUARY 2015 PREPARED BY: Bill White, Senior Transportation Planner 2880 Technology Blvd W PO Box 1113 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.587.0721 MMI PROJECT #: 5352.003 January 2015 Page 8 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study are performed from an adjacent, shared through-lane. Also indicated are traffic control conditions for the intersection. Controls and lanes are denoted with an “X”. Table 2. Existing Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Controls Intersection Traffic Control Intersection Geometrics Traffic Signal One-Way Stop Two-Way Stop All-Way Stop NB Left Turn Lane NB Right Turn Lane SB Left Turn Lane SB Right Turn Lane WB Left Turn Lane WB Right Turn Lane EB Left Turn Lane EB Right Turn Lane Cottonwood Rd/Durston Rd - - X - - - - - - - - - Westgate Ave/Durston Rd - - X - - - - - - - - - Laurel Parkway/Durston Rd - - X - - - X - - - - - Cottonwood Rd/W. Babcock St - - X - X X X - X - X - 2.2 TRAFFIC COUNTS Intersection turn movement counts were collected specifically for this study on Thursday December 4, 2014 for the intersections of Laurel Parkway/Durston Road, Cottonwood Road/Durston Road, and Cottonwood Road/W. Babcock Street. There are only 25 homes accessing Westgate Avenue and, as such, through volumes were extrapolated from Laurel Parkway/Durston Road intersection and turning movements were estimated using trip generation information summarized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) for residential housing for the Westgate Avenue/Durston Road intersection. This is an acceptable practice on low-volume roadways. Turing movement traffic counts were performed in the morning between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and in the afternoon/evening between 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in order to identify the AM and PM peak hours of commute/work traffic activity for each intersection. The resulting AM peak hour was noted to occur at the majority of intersections between 7:30 to 8:30 AM, with a 7:45 to 8:45 AM peak hour noted for Cottonwood Road/W. Babcock Street. The PM peak hour was noted between 4:45 to 5:45 PM at the majority of intersections, with a 4:30 to 5:30 PM peak hour noted for Laurel Parkway/Durston Road. Meadowlark Elementary is located in the study area north of Durston Road 650 feet east of Cottonwood Road. Primary school hours are from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM; having peak generator hours (highest hours of school traffic) occurring between 7:45 to 8:45 AM and 3:00 to 4:00 PM. Counts were performed while school was in session. The AM peak hour of the work commute traffic and AM peak generator of the school overlapped within the study area; and therefore analyses stated later in this report address this occurrence. However, the PM peak hour of commute activity was nearly 20 percent higher in volume following the PM peak generator hour of school activities for study intersections. As such, this TIS correctly addresses the PM peak hour of commute activity as volume demands are higher versus the afternoon hours of school. Figure 3 and Figure 4 provide a summary of existing traffic volumes for study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour. Count worksheets are provided in Technical Appendix B. January 2015 Page 11 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study 2.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The LOS and capacity analyses were performed based on a review of the traffic volumes summarized in Section 2.2 and the geometric conditions described in Section 2.1. Table 3 provides a summary of LOS for the AM and PM peak hours. Also shown are average control vehicle delays for each intersection. Note again, LOS and control delays for stop controlled intersections are the function of the worse approach or movement. Table 3. Existing LOS and Delay - AM and PM Peak Hours Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay Cottonwood Rd/Durston Rd D 30.5 sec D 25.0 sec Westgate Ave/Durston Rd B 10.6 sec B 10.8 sec Laurel Parkway/Durston Rd C 17.3 sec B 13.9 sec Cottonwood Rd/W. Babcock St B 14.1 sec B 12.7 sec LOS = Levels-of-Service Again, LOS E is the standard industry threshold for the operation of stop-controlled/unsignalized intersections. Therefore, all study intersections currently function within acceptable LOS ranges. This indicates that no capacity improvements would be warranted on the basis of existing traffic operations, as there is sufficient roadway capacity. LOS summary worksheets are provided in Section C of the Technical Appendix. 2.4 COLLISION HISTORIES Collision histories were reviewed to determine whether any unusual safety issues were noted at study intersections. Per typical industry approach, collision data was collected from the City of Bozeman for the most current three-year period available, which extends from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013. Collision histories were available for the Cottonwood Road/Durston Road, Laurel Parkway/Durston Road, and Cottonwood Road/W. Babcock Street intersections. A summary of the collision history review and analyses is as follows: Cottonwood Road/Durston Road. Two collisions were noted for the three-year study period, which represents an average 0.67 collisions per year. From counts, we can estimate a TEV of 11,675 ADT, which calculates to a collision rate of 0.16 collisions per million entering vehicles. There was one head-on collision and one collision between eastbound and westbound left-turning vehicles. Collisions involved property damage only with no injuries. Laurel Parkway/Durston Road. A single collision was noted during the three-year study period, which represents an average of 0.34 collisions per year. From counts, we can estimate a TEV of 10,000 ADT, which calculates to a collision rate of 0.09 collisions per million entering vehicles. This vehicle was driven into the ditch at night, with no collision with another vehicle. The accident involved property damage only with no injuries. January 2015 Page 22 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study 3.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The LOS and capacity analyses were performed based on a review of the traffic forecasts summarized in Section 3.2. As indicated, this analysis was performed based on current geometric conditions. Table 6 provides a summary of future without and with project LOS and control delays for the AM and PM peak hours. Table 6. Year 2024 LOS Summaries (Growth Rate) - AM and PM Peak Hours Future Without Project Future With-Project Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay Cottonwood Rd/Durston Rd F 102.8 F 177.2 F 207.8 F >250.0 Westgate Ave/Durston Rd B 11.6 B 12.0 C 15.9 C 15.4 Laurel Parkway/Durston Rd D 30.4 C 19.3 F 164.1 F 61.4 Cottonwood Rd/W. Babcock St C 18.2 C 15.5 C 20.2 C 17.5 Westmorland Dr/Durston Rd -- -- -- -- C 15.3 C 16.9 LOS = Levels-of-Service As shown, the Cottonwood Road/Durston Road intersection is projected to function at LOS F by year 2024 during the AM and PM peak hours, as reviewed based on forecasts developed with growth rates. Similarly, the Laurel Parkway/Durston Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F with the introduction of the fourth intersection approach during both peak hours. Note this LOS result is the function of delay experienced within the southbound approach, specifically the left-turn movement, at the intersection. All other intersections are projected to function with acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. January 2015 Page 31 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study A comparison of traffic forecasts was performed between the two forecast methodologies summarized in Section 3 (Year 2024 Growth Rate Forecasts) or Section 4 (Year 2024 Pipeline Forecasts). Table 8 provides a summary of total entering volume forecasts, represented as percent annual growth rates calculated between existing and future Year 2024 volumes for existing study intersections. Table 8. Total Entering Volume Annual Growth Comparisons Signalized Intersections Growth Rates Pipeline Trips AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Cottonwood Rd/Durston Rd 4.2% 4.4% 4.6% 5.3% Westgate Ave/Durston Rd 4.6% 4.9% 3.2% 3.7% Laurel Parkway/Durston Rd 4.2% 5.1% 3.7% 4.1% Cottonwood Rd/W. Babcock St 3.8% 4.1% 3.7% 4.8% Weighted Average Annual Growth Rates 4.3% 4.7% 4.0% 4.8% As shown, average annual growth rates are similar between the forecast methodologies for study intersections. Thus, although there is some difference between through and turning movement forecasts, they result in similar growth projections. 4.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The LOS and capacity analyses were performed based on a review of the traffic forecasts summarized in Section 4.2. Again, this analysis was performed based on the current geometric conditions as planned improvements are currently unfunded. Table 9 provides a summary of future without project LOS and control delays for the AM and PM peak hour, as based on pipeline project traffic forecasts. Table 9. Year 2024 Traffic Forecasts (Pipeline) - AM and PM Peak Hours Future Without Project Future With-Project Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1 Delay Cottonwood Rd/Durston Rd F >250.0 F >250.0 F >250.0 F >250.0 Westgate Ave/Durston Rd B 11.7 B 11.4 C 14.5 B 14.4 Laurel Parkway/Durston Rd C 23.8 C 16.6 F 75.6 E 40.5 Cottonwood Rd/W. Babcock St C 19.6 C 18.1 C 21.8 C 20.8 Westmorland Dr/Durston Rd -- -- -- -- B 14.9 C 15.2 LOS = Levels-of-Service As before, the Cottonwood Road/Durston Road intersection is projected to function at LOS F by year 2024 during the AM and PM peak hours, as reviewed based on forecasts developed with January 2015 Page 33 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study 5 IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT MITIGATION Operational deficiencies (LOS exceptions) were noted for the Cottonwood Road/Durston Road and Laurel Parkway/Durston Road intersections. This section reviews and validates two improvements planned for the study area. 5.1 COTTONWOOD DRIVE/DURSTON ROAD INTERSECTION As indicated, a LOS deficiency has been noted for the Cottonwood Drive/Durston Road intersection. Traffic forecasts were reviewed incrementally between year 2014 and year 2024 during the more critical of the peak hour conditions/scenarios reviewed for this intersection, which was the AM peak hour of the pipeline forecast scenario. Thus, to accomplish the incremental analysis for this intersection: 60 units of The Lakes of Valley West development was reviewed incrementally (every two years) to an intermediate horizon year The 1 percent annual growth rate compounded annually to this horizon year (every two years) Plus, a 20 percent increment assignment of pipeline project trips to this incremental horizon year (every two years) Based on this incremental analysis, it was determined the intersection would function at LOS F by year 2016, indicating the need for some improvement within a two year timeframe. The installation of an all-way stop would mitigate this deficiency temporarily, delaying this deficiency approximately two years. Thus, the need for more rigorous signal or roundabout improvement would be needed by year 2018. As indicated previously, the City of Bozeman is planning to construct a traffic signal or roundabout at this intersection as funding permits in the future. Either improvement will fully address & correct LOS for this intersection; resulting in a LOS B/C operations under either forecast scenario for the AM and PM peak hours. An analysis was then performed to determine the proposed projects responsibility towards Cottonwood Drive/Durston Road intersection improvements. Per standard industry practices, a developments responsibility towards improvements is calculated on the bases of total entering volumes. Thus, the weighted average impact of project trip assignments versus forecast TEV is shown below: (150+150+188+188) / (1,369+1,419+1,448+1,574) = 11.6% Given this calculation, the project comprises an average 11.6 percent of TEV at the intersection. As such, it is recommended the project participate in providing 32.0 percent of construction costs associated with improvement development. 5.2 DURSTON ROAD THREE LANE As indicated, the Laurel Parkway/Durston Road intersection is projected to function within the LOS F range during the peak hours according to both forecast scenarios. Although this conflict January 2015 Page 34 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study does occur as the result of project construction, with the addition of the fourth/south leg, the LOS issue is actually due to the stopped delay associated with the southbound left-turn movement at the intersection. Between 226 and 247 southbound left-turns were noted between forecast scenarios during the AM peak hour with between 142 and 155 noted between forecasts during the PM peak hour; causing significant stopped delays. Traffic forecasts were reviewed incrementally between year 2014 and year 2024 during the more critical of the peak hour conditions/scenarios reviewed for this intersection, which was the AM peak hour of the growth rate forecast scenario. Thus, to accomplish the incremental analysis for this intersection: 60 units of The Lakes of Valley West development was reviewed incrementally (every two years) to an intermediate horizon year, The 3 percent annual growth rate compounded annually to this horizon year (every two years), Based on this incremental analysis, it was determined the intersection would function at LOS F by year 2020, indicating the need for some improvement within a six-year timeframe. Typical improvements for LOS such as this include turning restrictions, the construction of a roundabout/signal, an alternative route, and/or the construction of a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) or center turn lane; of which the TWLTL and the signal/roundabout options seem the most appropriate given the situation. TWLTL. As indicated, City Engineers have planned to construct a TWLTL along Durston Road from Cottonwood to Westgate Avenue. With the appropriate channelization, this lane can offer turning capacity for intersections and driveways along the length of Durston Road, providing for the staged movements of left-turns from intersecting streets onto the arterial. The staging of left-turns promotes a concept known as two-stage gap acceptance. This improves LOS and reduces vehicle delay, as drivers deal with traffic conflicts from only one direction of travel at a time versus two. If channelized appropriately, this improvement would mitigate traffic operations back into the LOS D/E range during the year 2024 AM and PM peak hours. However, for this to serve as a TWLTL, no eastbound or westbound left-turn lanes can be striped at the intersection; rather only the TWLTL striping can be used. This is because southbound and northbound left turning vehicles would turn into a designated turn lane, which is prohibited. Even to this end, there may be a potential for traffic conflicts between especially westbound left and southbound left-turning movements. Therefore, City Engineers may not find this a desirable mitigation for LOS issues at the intersection. Per standard industry practices, a proportionate impact of roadway improvements, in this case TWLTL widening, is determined by comparing trip assignments versus forecast traffic volumes on the roadway in question. In this case, the weighted average impact of project trip assignments versus forecast assignments on Durston Road is shown below: (140+140+175+175) / (933+834+1,006+912) = 17.1% Given this calculation, the project comprises an average 17.1 percent of total growth projected along Durston Road between Cottonwood Road and Laurel Parkway. As such, it is January 2015 Page 35 The Lakes at Valley West Traffic Impact Study recommended the project participate in providing 17.1 percent of construction costs associated with improvement development. Traffic Signal. A roundabout or traffic signal would be the more ideal mitigation for the intersection, if a TWLTL is deemed by City Engineers to be the wrong improvement. A signal or roundabout would elevate operations back into the LOS B range, which is a better result; although this project would not offer capacity benefits to other intersections or driveways along Durston Road as with the TWLTL. So there is a trade-off with this improvement. As indicated previously, a comparison of TEV trip assignments versus total forecasts is the measure for impacts for intersections with the comparison summarized as follows: (152+152+190+190) / (973+877+1,050+961) = 17.7% Given this calculation, the project comprises an average 17.7 percent of total growth projected at the intersection. As such, it is recommended the project participate in providing 17.7 percent of construction costs associated with the development of a signal or roundabout, if required over a TWLTL. 5.3 DEVELOPER PROPOSAL The project proponent and developer for the Lakes at Valley West has offered to construct the third lane and bike lane for Durston Road extending nearly one mile between Cottonwood Road and Westgate Drive for the City of Bozeman. This would include the addition of 15 feet of pavement along the southern frontage of the current arterial with an 18-foot landscape area and 6-foot sidewalks, per the cross section shown below. Figure 17. Proposed Durston Road Cross-Section The expense with developing this paved section is much more considerable than 11.6 percent proportion of the Cottonwood Road/Durston Road intersection improvement and the 17.1 percent or 17.7 percent proportion of either Durston Road widening or Laurel Parkway/Durston Road improvements discussed above, respectively. Understanding this, City Engineers have indicated a willingness to enter into a “City of Bozeman Impact Fee Credit Agreement” with the project proponent to provide reimbursement for construction costs through traffic impact fees, the street budget, and/or through reimbursement of possible grants. BOZEMAN SPORTS PARK Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana June 2016 Prepared for: Traffic Impact Study Bozeman Sports Park Master Plan Transportation Analysis | 5-1 Analysis Scenarios & Methodologies This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to evaluate traffic operations within the project study area as well as any transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Bozeman Sports Park. This section contains information on study scenarios and analysis methodologies. Study Scenarios This study presents analyses of the following scenarios: Existing Conditions Estimated 2017 Total Traffic with the Existing Transportation Network Estimated 2017 Background Traffic with the Modified Transportation Network Estimated 2017 Total Traffic with the Modified Transportation Network Estimated 2026 Background Traffic Estimated 2026 Total Traffic Analysis Methodologies Transportation system operating conditions are typically described in terms of “level of service”. Level of service (LOS) is the performance measure used to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as travel speed, traffic volumes, roadway and intersection capacity, travel delay, and traffic interruptions. Operating conditions are designated as LOS A through LOS F, which represents the most favorable to the least favorable operating conditions. Level of service for intersections is determined by control delay. Control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. This includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from the free flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. Appendix A lists the delay/LOS criteria listed in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM2010) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) for unsignalized and signalized. Two-Way Stop-Controlled (TWSC) Intersection Analyses Two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using HCS Unsignal, Version 5.6 developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Traffic Impact Study Bozeman Sports Park Master Plan 5-2 | Transportation Analysis Florida. Unsignalized intersection analyses are based on Chapter 19 of the HCM2010. The HCM2010 methodology for evaluating TWSC intersections is based on gap acceptance and conflicting traffic for vehicles stopped on the minor street approaches. The critical gap (or minimum acceptable gap) is defined as the minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows entry for one minor street vehicle. Average control delay and LOS for each approach or lane movements on each approach are typically reported. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Signalized Intersection Analyses Signalized intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using TEAPAC Complete 2010, Version 8.62 – 12MAY14 Build 01 (TEAPAC) developed and maintained by Strong Concepts. These analyses are based on HCM analysis methodology for evaluating signalized intersections, which is based on the “operational analysis” procedure. This technique utilizes 1,900 passenger cars per hour of green per lane (pcphgpl) as the maximum saturation flow of a single lane at an intersection. This saturation flow rate is adjusted to account for lane width, on-street parking, conflicting pedestrians, traffic composition, and shared lane movements. Average delay is calculated by taking a volume- weighted average of all the delays for all vehicles entering the intersection. Roundabout Analyses Roundabout intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using HCS 2010 Roundabouts Version 6.50 also developed and maintained by the McTrans Center. Roundabout intersection analyses are based on Chapter 20 of the HCM2010. The HCM2010 methodology for evaluating roundabout intersections is based on flow patterns and conflicting traffic for vehicles entering, circulating, and exiting the roundabout. Traffic Operations Existing Conditions Analyses Evaluations of existing study area intersections were performed based on their current traffic volumes from data collected shown in Figure 3-3 on page 3-8 using the existing geometry and traffic control to determine present capacity and level of service. The results of the existing conditions analyses for the study area intersections are summarized in Table 5-1 on the following page. Appendix D-1 includes the detailed results of the intersection operations analyses for weekday, PM peak hour traffic volumes. Appendix E-1 includes the detailed results of the intersection operations analyses for Saturday, midday peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Impact Study Bozeman Sports Park Master Plan Transportation Analysis | 5-3 Table 5-1: Existing Study Area Intersection Traffic Operations Summary Intersection Approach/ Movement Weekday, PM Peak Hour Saturday, Midday Peak Hour LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c HCM 95% Queue (veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio, v/c HCM 95% Queue (veh) Baxter Ln & Harper Pucket Rd Stop Control EB LT A 7.7 0.01 0.03 A 7.5 0.00 0.01 WB TR A - - - A - - - SB LR B 11.0 0.08 0.24 B 10.3 0.05 0.16 Baxter Ln & Flanders Mill Rd Stop Control EB TR A - - - A - - - WB LT A 7.9 0.09 0.28 A 7.8 0.06 0.18 NB LR B 13.8 0.31 1.31 B 11.3 0.15 0.51 Baxter Ln & Ferguson Ave Roundabout Intersection A 6.7 0.30 - A 5.2 0.19 - EB LTR A 6.7 0.30 1.3 A 5.1 0.19 0.7 WB LTR A 7.1 0.35 1.6 A 5.4 0.23 0.9 NB LTR A 4.8 0.01 0.0 A 4.1 0.01 0.0 SB LTR A 5.7 0.14 0.5 A 4.5 0.06 0.2 Baxter Ln & Davis Ln All-Way Stop Control Intersection E 43.4 0.74 - INTERSECTION NOT EVALUATED FOR SATURDAY, MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB LTR F 51.0 0.93 10.70 WB LTR F 54.4 0.94 11.11 NB LT E 38.3 0.83 7.68 NB R B 11.7 0.16 0.56 SB LTR C 24.1 0.64 4.29 W Oak St & Davis Ln Stop Control EB LT B 10.0 0.25 0.97 INTERSECTION NOT EVALUATED FOR SATURDAY, MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WB TR A - - - SB L F 92.2 0.80 4.93 SB R C 15.5 0.36 1.63 Durston Rd & Ferguson Ave All-Way Stop Control Intersection D 33.1 0.78 - B 13.6 0.49 - EB LT D 30.6 0.76 6.24 B 14.4 0.46 2.43 EB R B 12.7 0.29 1.16 A 9.2 0.17 0.64 WB LTR D 33.3 0.81 7.36 B 12.4 0.41 1.95 NB LTR E 43.3 0.89 9.59 B 13.9 0.53 3.15 SB LTR D 29.2 0.78 6.81 B 14.3 0.56 3.47 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; LTR = Left-Through-Right; LT = Left-Through; TR = Through-Right; LR = Left-Right = Substandard Level-of-Service | XXX = Queue Exceeds Available Storage Traffic Impact Study Bozeman Sports Park Master Plan 6-2 | Findings Pedestrian & Bicyclist Connectivity Sidewalks, trails, and/or bike lanes are generally lacking within the study area; however, there is an existing trail system within the subdivision across Baxter Lane to the north of the proposed Bozeman Sports Park and east of Harper Pucket Road. There is also a sidewalk that begins approximately 275 feet west of Andalusian Avenue and 550 feet west of Flanders Mill Road. Improvement Needs for Existing Conditions Traffic Operations The deficiencies identified on Davis Lane at its intersections with Baxter Lane and West Oak Street as well as the intersection of Durston Road and Ferguson Avenue have been previously identified and improvements to those intersections are currently in progress or have been included as part of the City of Bozeman’s capital improvement program (CIP). Specifically, the following improvements are in progress or have been programmed: Intersection of Baxter Lane & Davis Lane The installation of a traffic signal is proposed to address previously identified substandard traffic operations. Design of the signalized intersection improvements has been completed. Right-of-way acquisition is currently in progress prior to initiation and completion of construction. Intersection of West Oak Street & Davis Lane From the pre-design analyses completed by Sanderson Stewart, signalization of the intersection of West Oak Street and Davis Lane has been recommended as the preferred option for traffic control. Funding for those improvements has been allocated through the City of Bozeman’s CIP; however, it is currently unscheduled within the next five-year programming cycle (fiscal years 2017 through 2021). However, funding for design of the extension of Fowler Avenue (would align with Davis Lane) from West Oak Street to Huffine Lane has been identified in fiscal year 2021. Durston Road & Ferguson Avenue A roundabout is also recommended for traffic control at the intersection of Durston Road and Ferguson Avenue within the Robert Peccia & Associates report. The recommended roundabout includes single lanes on each approach at the intersection for Durston Road and Ferguson Avenue with a single circulating lane throughout the roundabout. Funding for the intersection improvements is currently allocated in fiscal year 2018 through the City of Bozeman’s CIP. Traffic Impact Study East Main Street Development Bozeman, Montana August 2016 East Main Street Development Traffic Impact Study 2 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to identify traffic operations or safety issues that could be triggered by the addition of traffic related to the proposed East Main Street development in Bozeman, Montana. This report has been developed to provide technically sound mitigation options to development-related issues identified during the analysis process. This traffic impact study assumes the proposed development will be constructed in 2016. Study Area This study was completed for the traffic impacts corresponding to the proposed development. Initial plans indicate three new buildings on the site including a grocery store, retail shops, office spaces, and residential spaces. The proposed development site is located on the south side of East Main Street, between Highland Boulevard and Haggerty Lane in Bozeman, Montana. The surrounding land is of mixed usage with businesses along the north side of East Main Street, a residential neighborhood to the west, and a softball field complex to the south. The proposed development location and latest site plan can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. East Main Street is classified as a principal arterial, Highland Boulevard and Haggerty Lane are classified as minor arterials. Under current conditions, East Main Street has a posted speed limit of 40 MPH, Highland Boulevard and Haggerty Lane have a 35 MPH posted speed limit and all other roadways within the study area operate under a 25 MPH speed limit. Study Intersections The following intersections were evaluated within this study (see Figure 1): 1. Highland Boulevard and East Main Street – Currently signalized 2. Highland Boulevard and East Curtiss Street – Currently two-way stop controlled on East Curtiss Street 3. Haggerty Lane and East Main Street – Currently two-way stop controlled on Haggerty Lane 4. Cypress Street and East Main Street – Currently two-way stop controlled on Cypress Street Figure 1 - Study Area East Main Street Development Traffic Impact Study 4 Methodology Within this study, the following traffic conditions were analyzed to evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed development: 2016 Existing Conditions – Existing Conditions based on field collected data prior to proposed development 2016 Conditions with Development Traffic – Traffic Conditions expected with construction of proposed development Mitigation Strategies – Possible improvements identified to mitigate development-related deficiencies Figure 3, to the right, illustrates the planning process used within this study. Data Collection Weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movements collected at study intersections in October 2015 were provide with the exception of Highland Boulevard and East Curtiss Street with was collected by KLJ in May 2016. Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) within the study area were obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). Trip Generation Site-generated volumes were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution refers to the origin for entering trips and the destination for exiting trips to and from the proposed site. Trip assignment is the designated routing of trips between origin and destination. Both origins and destination for trips generated by the proposed site were estimated based on average daily traffic volumes obtained from MDT. Trips were assigned to the existing road network based upon engineering judgement, estimating the most ideal and reasonable route between origins and destination. Capacity Analysis Capacity analyses were performed using the Synchro 9 software, which implements an analysis methodology based on that in the Highway Capacity Manual to determine intersection delay and level of service. Level of service (LOS) is the qualitative measure of operational performance of transportation infrastructure using grades ranging from “A” to “F”, with “A” being the optimal level of service and “F” indicating breakdown of traffic flow. A breakdown of the HCM grading scale can be seen in Table 1. •Data Collection •Capacity Analysis•Signal Warrant Alanysis 2016 Existing Conditions •Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment •Capacity Analysis •Signal Warrant Analysis •Access Spacing Analysis 2016 Conditions with Development Traffic Mitigaion Strategies Figure 3 - Study Methodology East Main Street Development Traffic Impact Study 8 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Intersection capacity analyses were performed for existing weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions at all study intersections. Intersection capacity analysis spreadsheets are found in Appendix B. The Haggerty Lane and East Main Street intersection along with the Highland Boulevard and East Main Street intersection were found to currently operate below acceptable MDT standards. (See Table 3) The Highland Boulevard and East Main Street intersection currently operates at an overall LOS “B” during the AM peak hour and LOS ”C” during the PM peak hour. However, deficiencies are experienced with an overall LOS “D” reached for the PM peak hour on the northbound approach. The LOS for the northbound left turning vehicles is at LOS “F”. The intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street currently operates at an overall LOS “A” during the AM peak hour and LOS ”B” during the PM peak hour. Deficiencies are experienced on the northbound and southbound approaches during both AM and PM peak hour operations. Table 3 - Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Results East Main Street Development Traffic Impact Study 9 2016 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO The 2016 development scenario analyses were performed for conditions with site generated traffic added to the existing transportation network traffic. Analyses performed for this scenario include trip generation, distribution, and assignment, signal warrant analysis, turn lane warrant analysis, and access spacing analysis. These analyses were performed for the following site access alternatives: • Alternative 1: Full accesses off of Highland Boulevard, East Main Street and Haggerty Lane • Alternative 2: Full accesses off of Highland Boulevard and Haggerty Lane (no development access on East Main Street) • Alternative 3: Restricted access right-in and right-out (RIRO) off of Highland Boulevard, Full accesses off East Main Street and Haggerty Lane • Alternative 4: Restricted access RIRO off of Highland Boulevard and East Main Street, Full access off of Haggerty Lane • Alternative 5: Restricted access off Highland Boulevard right-in and right and left-out (RIRLO) and East Main Street left and right-in and right out (LRIRO), Full access off of Haggerty Lane The intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street was analyzed as a signalized intersection for each site access alternative as it was found to meet signalization warrants under existing peak hour conditions. Trip Generation Site generated traffic was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Applying the applicable ITE land use categories, daily, AM and PM Peak hour trips were calculated for the proposed development as seen in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4 - Development Trip Generation Summary Square Footage Independent Variable Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hr Trips (avg.) Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hr Trips (avg.) Trip Generation Rate Weekday Trips (avg.) Trip Generation Rate Weekday Trips (min.) 33000 1000 sf 1.56 51 1.49 49 11.03 364 3.58 118 10800 1000 sf 10.81 117 9.85 106 127.15 1373 73.51 794 12 units 0.46 6 0.58 7 6.59 79 5.10 0 3000 1000 sf 2.39 7 3.57 11 36.13 108 23.16 69 12404 1000 sf 1.80 22 1.74 22 11.65 145 5.33 66 17000 1000 sf 0 2.71 46 44.32 753 21.30 362 23736 1000 sf 3.41 81 9.48 225 102.24 2427 68.65 1629 2991 1000 sf 0.30 1 0.32 1 3.56 11 1.51 5 102943 285 467 5260 3044 General Office Building High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Low Rise Apartment Land Use Category Development Totals by Land Use Category Medical -Dental Office Building Single Tenant Office Building Specialty Retail Center Supermarket Warehousing Entering Leaving Entering Leaving Entering Leaving General Office Building 45 6 8 41 182 182 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 64 53 64 43 687 687 Low Rise Apartment 1 4 5 2 40 40 Medical -Dental Office Building 6 2 4 7 54 54 Single Tenant Office Building 20 2 3 18 72 72 Specialty Retail Center 0 0 26 20 332 422 Supermarket 50 31 115 110 1213 1213 Warehousing 1 0 0 1 5 5 Total 187 98 224 242 2585 2675 Land Use Type Trips AM PM Weekday Table 5 - Development Trips by Land Use Category East Main Street Development Traffic Impact Study 22 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Intersection capacity analyses were performed for weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions at all study intersections under the 2016 completed development scenario. (See Table 7) Capacity analyses were performed for the following site access alternatives: • Alternative 1: Full accesses off of Highland Boulevard, East Main Street and Haggerty Lane • Alternative 2: Full accesses off of Highland Boulevard and Haggerty Lane (no development access on East Main Street) • Alternative 3: Restricted access (RIRO) off of Highland Boulevard, Full accesses off East Street and Haggerty Lane • Alternative 4: Restricted access (RIRO) off of Highland Boulevard and East Main Street, Full access off of Haggerty Lane • Alternative 5: Restricted access off of Highland Boulevard (RIRLO) and East Main Street (LRIRO), Full access off of Haggerty Lane Table 7 - 2016 Development Scenario Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5# Alternative 5* Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall B C C C C C C B 14.0 23.5 25.1 25.0 26.0 25.8 26.0 19.6 C D D D D D D C 21.3 37.4 48.2 38.2 48.7 48.7 48.7 24.8 A A A A A A A A 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 A A A A A A A A 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 A A A A A A A A 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 A A A A A A A A 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 A A A A A A C A 2.9 7.7 8.3 7.7 7.8 7.7 16.0 7.7 B C C C C C F C 12.1 22.8 28.8 22.8 27.1 22.2 1540.9 22.2 A A A A A A 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 A A A A A A 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 A A A A A A A 1.0 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 A A A A A A A 1.5 2.6 0.6 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 A A A A A A A 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 A A A A A A A 2.0 3.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 # Alternative 5 with Two-way stop controlled Haggerty Ln and Main St intersection * Alternative 5 with double northbound left-turn lanes at Highland Blvd and Main St intersection Highland Boulevard & East Curtiss Street AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Time Period East Main Street & Highland Boulevard AM Peak PM Peak East Main Street & Cypress Street AM Peak PM Peak East Main Street & Haggerty Lane AM Peak PM Peak Development Access & Haggerty Lane AM Peak PM Peak Development Access & East Main Street AM Peak PM Peak Development Access & Highland Boulevard AM Peak PM Peak East Main Street Development Traffic Impact Study 31 RECOMMENDATIONS Warranted signalization of the Haggerty Lane and East Main Street intersection is recommended as it would reduce delay and improve LOS under both existing and development conditions. Signalization would greatly improve the northbound approach from LOS “F” under existing PM peak hour stop- controlled conditions to LOS “D” under development PM peak signalized conditions. If this intersection was left unsignalized, it would result in higher delays and operate at LOS “F”. Based on the analysis conducted on five alternatives for access to the development, it is recommended that Alternative 5 be advanced as the preferred alternative. Improvements to the northbound left turn at Highland Boulevard and East Main Street are needed, and double left turn lanes should be installed. Alternative 5 provides good traffic operations for all adjacent roadways and provides slightly less access restrictions than Alternative 4. Access to and from the development is superior to Alternative 4 as traffic to and from all directions has good options for entering and leaving the site. The proposed site plan shows how sidewalks are proposed to connect to building and parking areas within the development. The site plan also shows sidewalks proposed along Highland Boulevard, East Main Street and Haggerty Lane which may connect to existing and future sidewalk facilities off-site. It is recommended that sidewalks be installed as is shown in the proposed site plan. Concerns have been voiced by local citizens regarding safety for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Highland Boulevard. It is recommended that these crossings be promoted to occur at the north approach for the Highland Boulevard and East Curtiss Street intersection. Safety at this crossing should be enhanced using appropriate pedestrian crossing signs and markings, ADA accessible ramps, and installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. Crossings may also continue to be promoted at the East Main Street traffic signal along with the existing crossing further south along Highland Boulevard. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for BLACK OLIVE APARTMENTS Bozeman, Montana Prepared for HomeBase Montana Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 November 7, 2016 Black Olive Apartments TIS page 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were determined by performing manual intersection counts at study area intersections during the noon and peak PM hour periods. The noon hour peak was used instead of the am hour period because electronic counters on numerous streets within the CBD area indicated that there is no definitive am peak hour, but there is a substantial peak during the noon hour which is typical of most urban CBD areas. Mio-vision traffic recorder cameras were used for all of the intersections on Main Street and at the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Mendenhall Street. Manual Counts were taken at all of the other study intersections. Due to some variation in count starting and ending periods at some of the intersections, mathematical adjustments were made using electronic count data collected during the same time period. Figure 2 summarizes the existing noon peak hour turning volumes and Figure 3 summaries the peak pm hour turning movement counts. High pedestrian crossing numbers can be seen at most study intersections. In addition to the peak hour intersection turning movement counts, electronic traffic counters were set on Black Avenue, south of Babcock Street, and on Olive Street, east of Black Avenue. Hourly traffic volume summaries for these counters can be found in Appendix A of this report. It was found that the peak hour for traffic on the street system usually occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 with approximately 9.5% of the average weekday traffic (AWT). The noon hour is the beginning of the afternoon peak with approximately 8.4% of AWT. The noon hour also has the highest combined pedestrian and bicycle volumes at most intersections during the day. Appendix A also contains bicycle traffic volumes for the noon and peak pm hour periods at each of the intersections. It was found that the two intersections on Black Avenue had the greatest number of bicyclists. At the Black & Olive intersection, 45 entered in the noon hour and 39 in the peak pm hour. At the Black & Babcock intersection, 43 entered in the noon hour and 57 in the peak pm hour. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.3 30.4 31.5 32.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)65355 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.3 17.1 30.5 28.7 30.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.42 Queue Length (95%)77666 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.1 17.5 16.6 16.4 17.6LOSC BBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.23 Queue Length (95%)6 6256LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.1 17.5 18.1 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.27 Queue Length (95%)6 9336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.7 30.8 13.8 12.9 LOS CCBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.34 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1465 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.8 44.1 16.5 13.2 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.73 0.51 0.29 Queue Length (95%)210115 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 7.4 12.4 11.9 LOS A A BB V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.27 Queue Length (95%)1012LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.5 14.9 16.8 LOS A A BC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 Queue Length (95%)1113 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)31.1 12.4 13.3 11.6 14.2LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.29 0.12 0.36 Queue Length (95%)72727 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.6 13.4 14.5 12.7 15.2 LOS BBBBB V/C Ratio 0.60 0.24 0.39 0.20 0.43 Queue Length (95%)93849 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.5 27.7 30.0 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.43 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)68734 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.4 29.3 33.1 17.5 15.6LOSCCCBB V/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.39 0.19 Queue Length (95%)9101054 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6641LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.5 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)6852 One-Way Flow 13 TR LT 26.0 29.7 NA DD 0.25 0.51 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 26.0C 0.48 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour B Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B OVERALL 17.4B 0.32 Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.1B 0.41 Church Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour OVERALL 27.4C 0.61 Overall LOS B Overall LOS C OVERALL 15.5B SB Movement Group Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour Movement Group Movement Group Willson Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour Movement Group Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 1 17.2NAC 0.09 One-Way Flow TR Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Noon Hour Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Noon Hour Table 1. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Movement Group Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour Movement Group Willson Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour Intersection MOE EB WB NB One-Way Flow TR LT One-Way Flow TR LT 1 LT 12.5B 0.20 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour Movement Group Intersection OVERALL 20.2C 0.27 OVERALL 20.1C C 0.59 OVERALL18.3B 0.33 OVERALL 20.9C 0.42 0.32 OVERALL 17.4B 0.32 OVERALL24.3 Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 17.2 19.3NACCC 0.19 0.3112 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 14.7 22.0 NA BCC 0.15 0.46 13 0.38 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 19.5B 0.49 Black Olive Apartments TIS page 20 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.4 30.4 31.5 32.0LOSB BCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.33 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)6 5354 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 17.2 30.5 28.7 30.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.37 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.42 Queue Length (95%)5 8566LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.1 17.5 16.6 16.4 17.6LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.23 Queue Length (95%)66256 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.1 17.5 18.1 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.27 Queue Length (95%)69336LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.7 31.1 13.8 12.9LOSCCBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.31 0.34 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1565 LTR LTR LTR LTRControl Delay (s/veh)27.8 44.6 16.7 13.2 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.52 0.29 Queue Length (95%)210105 Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 7.5 13.4 12.7 LOS A A BB V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.29 Queue Length (95%)1012LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 7.6 16.2 18.6LOSAACC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 Queue Length (95%)1113 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)31.1 12.4 13.3 11.6 14.2 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.30 0.12 0.36 Queue Length (95%)72617LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.6 13.5 14.6 12.8 15.3LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.60 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.44 Queue Length (95%)93839 LTR LTR LTR L TRControl Delay (s/veh)27.5 27.7 30.1 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.44 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)69734 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.4 29.3 33.2 17.6 15.7 LOS CCCBBV/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.60 0.39 0.20 Queue Length (95%)10 10 9 4 4 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5LOSBBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6741 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.7 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)6752LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 10.5LOSAB V/C Ratio 0.15 0.03 Queue Length (95%)01 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 11.9 LOS A B V/C Ratio 0.24 0.02 Queue Length (95%)01 Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Movement Group Overall LOS Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Movement Group Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.1B 0.42 14Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 15.5B 0.32 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour 26.5 32.7NA D D C 0.25 0.55 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Noon Hour 17.5 13.0NA C B B 0.09 0.2111 Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 27.4C 0.61 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 26.1C 0.49 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 19.5B 0.50 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Noon Hour 17.4B 0.38 13 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B Black Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour B Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour C Movement Group Overall LOS 15.2 24.3NA C C 0.17 0.51 Willson Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 18.3B 0.33 One-Way Flow TR LTMovement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 17.9 19.9 NA C C C Table 3. Existing Plus Peak Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Movement Group OVERALL 0.25 0.33 12 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 24.6C 0.60 Willson Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour 17.7B 0.33 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 20.1C 0.32 Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 20.2C 0.27 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 21.0C 0.42 Movement Group OVERALL Black Olive Apartments TIS page 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Future Capacity Table 4 presents a summary of capacity calculations for future (year 2301) conditions based on the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7. In comparing Table 4 results to Table 3, it can be seen that same intersection approaches at Olive & Willson and at Rouse and Babcock would still be at a LOS less than “C”, except that the southbound approach to Babcock would be at LOS “E”. In addition, the southbound approach on Black Avenue at Babcock Street would operate at LOS “D” with 31.1 seconds of delay per vehicle. With respect to overall intersection LOS, none of the intersections would have a LOS less than “C”. The development garage access would still operate at LOS B” in the year 2031. LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.9 17.9 32.3 29.4 31.2 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.39 0.47 Queue Length (95%)7 8677 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.3 19.5 17.3 18.1 18.4 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.23 0.30 Queue Length (95%)6 11336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.9 48.8 17.5 13.5 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.10 0.80 0.56 0.31 Queue Length (95%)211115 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.6 17.5 23.1 LOS AACC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.60 Queue Length (95%)1114 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)33.8 14.3 16.3 14.4 15.5 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.62 0.25 0.44 0.25 0.38 Queue Length (95%)11 39 57 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)29.8 30.2 34.7 18.0 15.8 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.43 0.21 Queue Length (95%)8101055 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)14.0 15.4 33.6 28.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.38 0.48 0.42 0.14 Queue Length (95%)7962 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 12.4 LOS AB V/C Ratio 0.27 0.02 Queue Length (95%)01 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 21.8C 0.47 Table 4. Year 2031 Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 26.2C 0.65 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 20.6C 0.35 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 16.4 31.1 NA C D C 0.20 0.61 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B 14 Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 28.4C 0.66 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 20.4B 0.51 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour 29.8 41.7 NA D E C 0.30 0.64 Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.6B 0.46 24 Movement Group Overall LOS Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Black Olive Apartments TIS page 24 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic assignments, and capacity calculations show that the development of Black Olive Apartments would not have any appreciable impacts on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. Analysis of downtown intersections for year 2031 conditions indicate that none of the intersections would operate at less than an overall LOS “C”. From our analysis it appears that the development will provide an environment for traffic reduction commensurate with the current trends in the downtown area. The commercial facilities with the residential building and the Car Sharing concept would provide the atmosphere which would reduce motorized vehicular impacts appreciably. It is recommended that garage access be designed to allow sufficient sight distance on Olive Street similar to requirements for mid-block alley approaches. HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)211 282 17 20 4 55 49 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)405 28 119 Capacity 323 598 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 95% Queue Length 0.3 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)17.2 12.5 Level of Service (LOS)C B Approach Delay (s/veh)17.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:41:02 PM Rouse Babcock Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)272 384 16 42 8 40 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)534 57 147 Capacity 227 289 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.51 95% Queue Length 1.0 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)26.0 29.7 Level of Service (LOS)D D Approach Delay (s/veh)26.0 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:44:21 PM Rouse Babcock PM Exist.xtw Morrison Maierle engineers surveyors planners scientists 5 .R/ 'o a Traffic Impact Study i BOZEMAN WEST - APARTMENTS Lot B of Certificate of Survey No. 1256A 1; y Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana February 2017 MMI No. 3959.021 Morrison Traffic Impact StudyMierlaBozemanWest—Apartments I Bozeman yengineers•surveyors planners•scientists Gallatin County, Total Traffic Site-generated traffic from the proposed Bozeman West- Apartments development was combined with the estimated 2020 background traffic volumes to establish the estimated 2020 total traffic volumes that were used in the impact analyses. Estimated 2020 total traffic at the study area intersections is shown in Figure 14 on the following page. The estimated 2020 total traffic at the proposed site accesses is shown in Figure 15 on page 25. Transportation Methodologies This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the traffic impact analyses for the proposed Bozeman West - Apartments. Study methodology and analyses are based on ITE's Recommended Practices for Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development. These analyses are used to determine the project's conformance with City of Bozeman policies and evaluate whether the proposed development's impacts are perceptible to the average driver. Shidy Scenades This study presents analyses of the following scenarios: Existing Conditions Estimated 2020 Background Traffic Estimated 2020 Total Traffic Analysis Methodologies Transportation system operating conditions are typically described in terms of "level of service". Level of service (LOS) is the performance measure used to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as travel speed, traffic volumes, roadway and intersection capacity, travel delay, and traffic interruptions. Operating conditions are designated as LOS A through LOS F, which represents the most favorable to the least favorable operating conditions. Level of service for intersections is determined by control delay. Control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in- queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from the free flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. Appendix A lists the delay/LOS criteria listed in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) for signalized and unsignalized intersections. 23 Traffic Impact Study 111111111I Morrison Bozeman West—Apartments I Bozeman, Gallatin Count Montana Maierle Yr engineers•surveyors•planners•scientists Signalized Intersection Analyses Signalized intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using TEAPAC Complete 2016, Ver 9.01 08SEP16 Build 01 (TEAPAC) developed and maintained by Strong Concepts. These analyses are based on HCM analysis methodology for evaluating signalized intersections, which is based on the 'operational analysis" procedure. This technique utilizes 1,900 passenger cars per hour of green per lane (pcphgpl) as the maximum saturation flow of a single lane at an intersection. This saturation flow rate is adjusted to account for lane width, on-street parking, conflicting pedestrians, traffic composition, and shared lane movements. Average delay is calculated by taking a volume- weighted average of all the delays for all vehicles entering the intersection. Two-Way Stop-Controlled(TWSC) Intersections Two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software 2010 TWSC Version 6.80 (HCS) developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. TWSC intersection analyses are based on Chapter 19 of the HCM. The HCM methodology for evaluating TWSC intersections is based on gap acceptance and conflicting traffic for vehicles stopped on the minor street approaches. The critical gap (or minimum acceptable gap) is defined as the minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows entry for one minor street vehicle. Average control delay and LOS for the "worst approach" are reported. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. All-Way Stop-Controlled(AWSC) Intersections All-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection capacity and level of service analyses were also performed using HCS. AWSC intersection analyses are based on Chapter 20 of the HCM. The HCM methodology for evaluating AWSC intersections is a function of traffic and conditions on each of the approaches and the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians. Average control delay and LOS are reported. Level of service is also defined for the intersection as a whole. Capacity & Level of Service Capacity and level of service analyses were performed for the study area intersections for estimated 2017 current daily traffic volumes (shown in Figure 9 on page 14), estimated 2020 background traffic volumes (shown in Figure 13 on page 22), and estimated 2020 total traffic volumes (shown in Figure 14 on page 24). Evaluations were performed using the existing geometry and traffic control at each of the study area intersections, with the exception of the proposed site accesses, to determine estimated capacity and level of service. The analyses are summarized in the tables on the following pages and detailed results are included in Appendix D. 26 No Morrison Traffic Impact Study Mal, "siPlui Bozeman West—Apartments I Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montanaengmecnfuneouesirnnat Table 3:Weekday,AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary for West Oak Street&North 27th Avenue Performance Measure LOS A A A A C B D C Estimated 2017 Current Daily Traffic Delay Conditions slveh) Two-Way Volume to Capacity Stop Control Ratio(vlc)LO4 0.02 0.30 0.09 0.15 0.22 TWSC) Intersection HCM 95%Max L3 0 30 8 13 LjOQueueLength(ft) LOS A A A A D B E C Estimated 2020 Background Delay Traffic slveh) 8.1 8.6 34.5 12.3 44.8 21.5 Conditions Two-Way Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.42 0.10 0.24 0.30 Stop Control Ratio(vlc) TWSC) _ Intersection HCM 95%Max Queue Length(ft) LL] - [1] L- 48 L8 LL 30 LOS A A A A E B E C Estimated 2020 Total Traffic Delay 81 8.6 35.3 12.3 45.5 21.8 Conditions slveh) Two-Way I Volume to Capacity Stop Control Ratio(vlc) 0.04 0.02 0.43 0.10 0.24 0.31 TWSC) Intersection HCM 95%Max L3 L- LL] L - 50 LL] 23 LL3QueueLength(ft) EB=Eastbound;WB=Westbound;NB=Northbound;SB=Southbound L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;LTR=Left-Through-Right;LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Right;LR=Left-Right Substandard Level-of-Service 27 Traffic Impact Study No Morrison iiiiiiiii Bozeman West—Apartments I Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana Malerle Table 4:Weekday, PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary for West Oak Street&North 27th Avenue Performance Measure MMMMMUMN LOS A A A A D B E C Estimated 2017 Current Daily Traffic Delay 8 5 8.0 27.4 10.0 35.7 21.9 Conditions stveh) Two-Way Volume to CapacityStopControlRatio(vlc) 0.03 0.07 0.20 0.06 0.13 0.35 TWSC) Intersection LHCM95%Max 3 L - 5 18 5 10 38 Queue Length(ft) LOS A A A A E B F D Estimated 2020 Background Delay Traffic stveh) 9.0 8.2 38.8 10.5 57,2 32.3 Conditions Two-Way Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.29 0.06 0.22 L!0 Stop Control Ratio(vlc) TWSC) Intersection HCM 95%Max L L3 5 Li 28 5 20 63 Queue Length(ft) LOS A A A A E B F D Estimated 2020 Total Traffic Delay 9 0 g.2 41.0 10.5 61.9 ]328 Conditions siveh)IL 1 Two-Way Volume to CapacityStopControlRatio(vlc) 0.03 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.24( TWSC) Intersection HCM 95%Max L3 5 L33 5 23 Queue Length(ft) EB=Eastbound;WB=Westbound;NB=Northbound;SB=Southbound L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;LTR=Left-Through-Right;LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Right;LR=Left-Right Substandard Level-of-Service 28 No Morrison Maierle a Traffic Impact Study Bozeman West-Apartments I Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana Table 9:Weekday,AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary for North 19th Avenue&Baxter Lane Analysis Performancm LOS EB FD D D D C B A A B Estimated Delay2017Currentslveh)18.9 L2..Daily Traffic Conditions Volume to Capacity 0.52 L34 0.67 0.49 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.30 0.19 0.70 Signalized Ratio(vlc) Intersection HCM 95% Max Queue -121 283 107 110 61 24 183 55 420 Length(ft) LOS C D D D D C B A B B Estimated 2020 Delay 21.1 Background LE 41.7 53.8 35.3 30.1 14.6 9.2 10.6 17.0 slveh)a Traffic Conditions Volume to Capacity 0.56 0.35 0.68 0.51 0.24 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.22 0.77 Signalized Ratio(vlc) Intersection HCM 95% Max Queue -128 303 116 119 64 28 22 65 551 Length(ft) LOS u Estimated Delay2020Totalslveh) 21.9 40.5 40.7 53.3 34.4 29.2 15.7 10.2 11.2 18.7 Traffic U Conditions Volume to Capacity 0.57 0.34 0.66 0.54 0.24 0.14 0.21 0.36 0.24 0.78 Signalized Ratio(vtc) Intersection HCM 95% Max Queue 130 L04 H7] 117 E E9]E 67 604 Length(ft) EB=Eastbound;WB=Westbound;NB=Northbound;SB=Southbound L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;LTR=Left-Through-Right;LT=Left-Through;TR=Through-Right;LR=Left-Right Substandard Level-of-Service I =Queue Exceeds Available Storage 31 Traffic Impact Study Morrison Bozeman West-Apartments I Bozeman Gallatin Count Montana Maierle North 19th Avenue & West Oak Street Again, Table 14 on page 36 shows that the intersection of North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street as a whole is estimated to operate at LOS D for the weekday, PM peak hour for estimated 2020 background traffic volumes. This intersection was also included in the Oak Street Improvements Pre- Design Report. This study recommended improvements at the intersection, including the addition of an eastbound through lane as well as a dedicated right turn lane. Capacity and level of service analyses were performed for the intersection of North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street for estimated 2020 background traffic volumes (shown in Figure 13 on page 22). The analyses are summarized in Table 19 on the following page 43with detailed results included in Appendix E-2. Improvements to Accommodate Estimated 2020 Total Traffic For estimated 2020 total traffic volumes, the same three intersections were identified as being outside level of service standards — 1)West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue; 2) Baxter Lane and North 27th Avenue; and 3)West Oak Street and North 19th Avenue. West Oak Street & North 27th Avenue Similar to estimated 2020 background traffic volumes, Table 3 on page 27 and Table 4 on page 28 both show the same movements operating at substandard levels of service under estimated 2020 total traffic volumes. As before, AWSC was evaluated for mitigating operational deficiencies for the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue for estimated 2020 total traffic volumes (shown in Figure 14 on page 24). The analyses are summarized in Table 20 on page 44 with detailed results included in Appendix E-3. Baxter Lane & North 27th Avenue As shown in in Table 8 on page 30, there is very little change to average vehicle delays for southbound movements at the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27th Avenue with the addition of traffic from the proposed Bozeman West - Apartments project. Those movements are again estimated to operate at LOS D during the weekday, PM peak hour. As noted previously, the slightly longer average vehicle delays affect a limited number of vehicles, resulting in a minor benefit being gained through mitigation of substandard traffic operations for that approach. Therefore, improvements to address the level of service for estimated 2020 total traffic volumes on the southbound, Thomas Drive approach at the intersection have not been evaluated. 42 Lot-, SANDERSON 7 STEWART f 11 4 WEST WINDS SW SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY prepared for: Haystack Development PO Box 1793 Bozeman, MT 59771 TQN .4 prepared by: Sanderson Stewart TA 106 East Babcock 7ta; WE Bozeman, MT 59715 I December 2017 SAN D ERSONSTEWART. CO SANDERSON STEWART ' Table 1. Existing Conditions(2017)Capacity Calculations Summary Existing 2017 AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control A%19 95th% Arg 95th 0/6 Delay Queue Delay Queue s/veh LOS veh s/veh LOS veil Intersection Control UI II'riy.'tn Control EB 17.9 C 5 19.3 C 5 Davis Lane& WB 12.4 B 2 18.0 C 5 NB 11.3 B 1 13.1 B 2 Baxter Lane SB 12.9 B 2 15.9 C 3 Intersection 14.8 B 17.2 C Intersection Control One-lY/rrp /o ntrol IIB Davis Lane& WB 8.8 A 0 9.1 A 0 NB Breeze Lane SB I -- I -- ntersection Control Roundabout EB 2.5 A 2 4.0 A 1 Davis Lane& WB 4.4 A 1 3.2 A 2 Oak Street SB 2.2 A 1 1.4 A 1 Intersection 3.3 A 3.0 A Intersection Control One-II"ay Stop Control B Oak Street& EB WB 1.6 A 1 1.5 A 1 New Holland Drive NB 11.4 B 1 11.1 B 1 1 Intersection Control Olie-II%"rt y Stop Gintrol SB) Oak Street& EB 0.3 A 0 0.2 A 0 A'indward Avenue SB 10.3 B 1 12.0 B 1 Intersection Control 7'Y'&- Yiy StopContra B e~S B) EB 0.4 A 1 1.0 A 1 Oak Street& A111 0.8 A 1 1.5 A 1 27th Avenue N B 11.1 B 1 15.6 C 1 S 6. TRIP GENERATION 1n accurate estimate of site-generated traffic must be made ro analyze the impacts of a new development This study utilized Trip Generation, 10th Edition,published hj-the Institute of'Transportation Engineers ('M),which is the most Nvidely accepted source for determining trip generation projections.1 or the purposes of this studi, trip generation was calculated using the Single-Family Detached Housing (Land ('se 210" categonZ.Table 2 on the following page illustrates the results of the trip generation calculations for this site. I'pon full occupancy of the residences, the project is projected to generate a total of 689 gross average weekday-trips with 54 trips (14 entering 40 exiting) generated during the zVNI peak hour and 72 trips (45 entering/27 exiting) generated during the PM peak hour. West Winds SW Subdivision TIS BOZEMAN HEALTH – NEW ICU TOWER & O.R. FACILITIES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY prepared for: Bozeman Health 915 Highland Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 prepared by: Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock Bozeman, MT 59715 April 2018 Bozeman Health ICU Tower and OR Expansion TIS 5 Highland Boulevard/Parking Lot C & H Access The intersection of Highland Boulevard and the access road to parking lot C/H has three legs with the stop control on the west approach. All approach legs have a single approach lane for all movements. Highland Boulevard/Old Highland Boulevard The intersection of Highland Boulevard and Old Highland Boulevard has three legs with stop control on the west approach. The south approach consists of a dedicated left-turn lane and a thru lane. The west approach consists of a dedicated left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. The north leg has a single approach lane for all movements. Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected for the study area intersections in late November and early December of 2017. In general, the weekday peak hour periods were found to occur from 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Raw count data was adjusted for seasonal variation using MDT seasonal adjustment factors. Figure 3 on the following page summarizes the resulting calculated peak hour turning movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed traffic count data worksheets are included in Appendix B. Intersection Capacity Existing Conditions (2017) capacity calculations were performed for the study area intersections using Synchro, Version 10, which relies on the 6th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM6) (Transportation Research Board, 2016) methodologies. The HCM defines level of service (LOS) as “a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience.” LOS is a qualitative measure of the performance of an intersection with values ranging from LOS A, indicating good operation and low vehicle delays, to LOS F, which indicates congestion and longer vehicle delays. The results of the Existing Conditions (2017) capacity calculations showed that only two intersections within the study area experience a substandard LOS on one or more approaches. The intersection of East Main Street and Highland Boulevard operates at LOS C for both the PM peak hour but the south approach (Highland Boulevard) experiences a LOS D for the PM peak hour. Projected 95th percentile queues are lengthy, particularly on the south approach. At the Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard intersection, the east and west legs operate at LOS D for the AM peak hour and the west leg operates at LOS F for the PM peak hour. Projected 95th percentile queues on Ellis Street are minimal, except the west leg during the PM peak hour. Table 1 displays the results of the Existing Conditions (2017) capacity calculations. Capacity calculation worksheets for each of the study area intersections can be found in Appendix C. Bozeman Health ICU Tower and OR Expansion TIS 7 TRIP GENERATION An accurate estimate of site-generated traffic must be made to analyze the impacts of a new development. This study utilized Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by ITE, which is the most widely accepted source for determining trip generation projections. For the purposes of this study, trip generation was calculated using the Hospital (Land Use 610) category. Table 2 on the following page illustrates the results of the trip generation calculations for this site. With full occupancy of the new development areas, the project is projected to generate a total of 58 (39 entering/19 exiting) gross trips during the AM peak hour and 63 trips (20 entering/43 exiting) generated during the PM peak hour. Areas designated in the proposed OR expansion and ICU tower for storage, mechanical and entry areas were not included in the trip generation estimates. Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) EB 14.6 B 9 31.4 C 15 WB 7.3 A 9 16.9 B 5 NB 33.4 C 10 49.5 D 17 SB 34.3 C 1 22.0 C 1 Intersection 14.4 B --34.3 C -- EB 30.8 D 1 70.3 F 6 WB 28.4 D 2 20.3 C 2 NB 0.2 A 0 0.0 A 0 SB 1.0 A 1 1.0 A 1 EB 14.8 B 1 20.3 C 1 NB 0.3 A 0 0.3 A 1 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 12.8 B 1 18.3 C 1 NB 0.2 A 0 0.2 A 0 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 12.9 B 1 19.3 C 2 NB 0.9 A 1 0.3 A 0 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 12.0 B 1 15.4 C 1 NB 0.9 A 1 0.4 A 0 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 Highlalnd Boulevard & Old Highland Boulevard Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Intersection Control Approach AM Peak PM Peak Existing (2017) Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Highland Boulevard & South Parking Lot Access Intersection Control Signalized East Main Street & Highland Boulevard Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Highland Boulevard & Middle Parking Lot Access Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Highland Boulevard & North Parking Lot Access Intersection Control Two-way Stop Control (EB & WB) Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street Table 1. Existing Conditions (2017) Capacity Calculations Summary Bozeman Health ICU Tower and OR Expansion TIS 10 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Volumes For the purposes of this study, based on information from Bozeman Health, it was assumed that full buildout and occupancy for the OR expansion and ICU tower developments would occur by the end of calendar year 2019. In addition to the site- generated traffic from the subject development, two additional area developments are anticipated to occur within the next five years. Estimated traffic generated by the current proposed layouts of the two developments (Knolls East Subdivision and Revolution Sports Campus) were combined with the Existing (2017) traffic volumes to produce the Future (2022) traffic volume scenario. Figure 5 on page 11 illustrates the projected AM and PM peak hour Future (2022) + Site traffic volume projections that were calculated for this study. Intersection Capacity Sanderson Stewart performed intersection capacity calculations for the Future (2022) + Site scenario based on the AM and PM peak hour traffic volume projections presented in Figure 5, generally based on existing lane configurations and traffic control features. One exception is the intersection of East Main Street and Highland Boulevard, which is programmed for the installation of an additional northbound left-turn lane. Additionally, the Old Highland Boulevard and Highland Boulevard intersection was modeled as a four-leg intersection (two-way stop controlled) with the connection into the Knolls East Subdivision as the east leg of the intersection. Table 3 on page 12 shows the results of the Future (2022) + Site scenario capacity calculations. The intersection of East Main Street and Highland Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour with the additional northbound left-turn lane using the existing signal phasing and timing plan. However, the south approach is anticipated to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour. Minor modifications to the signal timing plan could likely bring all approaches to LOS C or higher values. Projected 95th percentile queues on the south approach are greatly reduced with the additional left-turn lane. The intersection of Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard continues to degrade to LOS E or LOS F for both minor approaches (Ellis Street) in both the AM and PM peak hours. Ellis Street is anticipated to experience large queuing, especially in the PM peak hour. All other project intersection approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better with minimal queueing. The one exception is the west approach of the Bozeman Heath north parking lot (parking lots A and B), which is anticipated to move slightly into the LOS D threshold for the PM peak hour. Detailed capacity calculation worksheets for the Future (2022) + Site traffic volume scenario are included in Appendix D. Bozeman Health ICU Tower and OR Expansion TIS 12 Mitigation Alternatives Sanderson Stewart investigated two potential mitigation alternatives intended to improve LOS, delay and queuing conditions for the substandard approaches at the intersection of Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard. A semi-actuated, two-phased traffic signal with existing lane geometry is anticipated to operate at LOS A for both AM and PM peak hours. Projected 95th percentile queues are expected to be marginal for this alternative, with the highest queueing occurring on Highland Boulevard. Additionally, a single-lane roundabout was evaluated at the intersection and is anticipated to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS A in the PM peak hour. Projected 95th percentile queues are expected to be less than the signalized alternative. The results of those capacity calculations are displayed in Table 4. Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) EB 11.8 B 4 25.7 C 11 WB 11.7 B 10 14.2 B 5 NB 27.9 C 4 41.6 D 8 SB 30.4 C 1 21.8 C 1 Intersection 15.0 B --28.8 C EB 49.4 E 2 354.0 F 13 WB 54.3 F 5 94.7 F 9 NB 0.2 A 0 0.0 A 0 SB 1.1 A 1 1.9 A 1 EB 16.5 C 1 27.7 D 2 NB 0.3 A 0 0.3 A 1 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 13.5 B 1 22.3 C 1 NB 0.2 A 0 0.2 A 0 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 13.6 B 1 24.3 C 3 NB 0.9 A 1 0.3 A 1 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 13.7 B 1 23.3 C 2 WB 12.5 B 1 15.2 C 1 NB 0.9 A 1 0.4 A 1 SB 0.2 A 0 0.4 A 1 Intersection Control Signalized - Dual NB Lefts Intersection Control Approach Future (2022) + Site AM Peak PM Peak East Main Street & Highland Boulevard Intersection Control Two-way Stop Control (EB & WB) Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Highland Boulevard & South Parking Lot Access Intersection Control Two-Way Stop Control (EB & WB) Highlalnd Boulevard & Old Highland Boulevard Highland Boulevard & North Parking Lot Access Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Highland Boulevard & Middle Parking Lot Access Intersection Control One-Way Stop Control (EB) Table 3. Future (2022) + Site Capacity Calculations Summary Bozeman Health ICU Tower and OR Expansion TIS 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The preceding analysis has shown that the proposed Bozeman Health expansion will generate minor increases in traffic demand for area streets and intersections. The intersection of Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard has a substandard LOS on the minor legs for the Existing (2017) conditions and is anticipated to continue to degrade for the Future (2022) + Site volume scenario. Two mitigation alternatives were evaluated and were shown to mitigate the substandard LOS values on the Ellis Street approaches. A roundabout or signal should eventually be installed at the Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard intersection. As noted previously, Bozeman Health is moving many of their services from the main campus and are also using the expanded space proposed with this project to bring many existing patient rooms up to current standards. Therefore, the projection of new trips generated in this study may represent an over approximation of what will actually be generated. Because of this, the City of Bozeman may allow the intersection improvements to be constructed with a future Special Improvement District (SID) to allow the cost of the improvements to be shared with other area developments. Recommendations The following list of recommendations is based on the analysis results from this study and the professional judgment of the author: - A roundabout should be installed at the intersection of Ellis Street and Highland Boulevard to serve existing traffic and be expandable to a multi-lane roundabout to serve future traffic. The timing of this improvement shall be determined by the City of Bozeman with input from Bozeman Health. - All transportation-related improvements shall be designed in accordance with City of Bozeman standards and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). If the above improvements are implemented as recommended, traffic on the area street network should continue to operate in a safe and efficient manner. Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) EB 20.0 C 2 15.8 B 4 5.9 A 0 6.9 A 1 WB 22.3 C 2 16.8 B 3 5.8 A 1 10.3 B 2 NB 3.3 A 3 6.9 A 9 6.7 A 2 11.9 B 5 SB 5.7 A 7 5.7 A 5 13.4 B 7 6.8 A 2 Intersection 7.0 A --9.0 A --10.6 B --9.5 A -- Future (2022) + Site AM Peak PM Peak Roundabout - Single Lane Highland Boulevard & Ellis Street Intersection Control Approach Future (2022) + Site AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Signalized - Existing Geometry Table 4. Future (2022) + Site Improved Capacity Calculations Summary Traffic Impact Study Park Place Industrial Park | Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana 21 Analysis Methodologies Transportation system operating conditions are typically described in terms of “level of service”. Level of service (LOS) is the performance measure used to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as travel speed, traffic volumes, roadway and intersection capacity, travel delay, and traffic interruptions. Operating conditions are designated as LOS A through LOS F, which represents the most favorable to the least favorable operating conditions. Level of service for intersections is determined by control delay. Control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from the free flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. Appendix A lists the delay/LOS criteria listed in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) for unsignalized and signalized intersections. Signalized Intersection Analyses Signalized intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using TEAPAC Complete 2016, Ver 9.01 08SEP16 Build 01 (TEAPAC) developed and maintained by Strong Concepts. These analyses are based on Chapter 19 of the HCM. The HCM methodology for evaluating signalized intersections, which is based on the “operational analysis” procedure, utilizes 1,900 passenger cars per hour of green per lane (pcphgpl) as the maximum saturation flow of a single lane at an intersection. This saturation flow rate is adjusted to account for lane width, on-street parking, conflicting pedestrians, traffic composition, and shared lane movements. Average delay is calculated by taking a volume-weighted average of all the delays for all vehicles entering the intersection. Two-Way Stop-Controlled (TWSC) Intersections Two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection capacity and level of service analyses were performed using HCS TWSC Version 7.4 developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. Unsignalized intersection analyses are based on Chapter 20 of the HCM. The HCM methodology for evaluating TWSC intersections is based on gap acceptance and conflicting traffic for vehicles stopped on the minor street approaches. The critical gap (or minimum acceptable gap) is defined as the minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows entry for one minor street vehicle. Average control delay and LOS for the “worst approach” are reported. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Traffic Impact Study Park Place Industrial Park | Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana 27 Findings Need for Any Improvements 2018 Existing Conditions Capacity and level of service analyses based on current daily traffic conditions show that the northbound approach at the intersection of the I-90 Frontage Road and East Valley Center Spur Road is currently operating at LOS D during the weekday, PM peak hour. The currently proposed signalization of the intersection by MDT with their Valley Spur Intersection Improvement project (SF-169 Valley Spur Intx Imprv, HSIP 1299(42), UPN 9190000M) will mitigate the substandard level of service on the northbound approach as indicated through the estimated 2030 background and total traffic analyses. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary. Each of the remaining study area intersections are currently operating within acceptable levels of service and there were not any specific safety concerns identified that warranted further evaluation. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary at any of the other study area intersections for current daily traffic conditions evaluated as a part of this study. 2030 Estimated Background Traffic No traffic operational issues were identified for estimated 2030 background traffic conditions at any of the study area intersections that would require mitigation. 2030 Estimated Total Traffic With the addition of traffic from the proposed Park Place Industrial Park Subdivision, the southbound approach at the intersection of the I-90 Frontage Road and Nelson Road is projected to degrade to LOS D during the weekday, AM peak hour and LOS E during the weekday, PM peak hour. Mitigation to address the substandard level of service would be necessary based on estimated 2030 total traffic conditions. No additional traffic operational issues were identified at any of the other intersections evaluated as a part of this study. I-90 Frontage Road & Nelson Road Signal Warrant Analyses Because the 2030 total traffic volumes are based on projections through traffic growth in the area in combination with contributions from the proposed Park Place Industrial Park Subdivision, actual 24-hour traffic volumes, pedestrian / bicyclist crossings, and crash experience data (for the year 2030) are not available to perform a full traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of the I-90 Frontage Road and Nelson Road. The Oregon Department of Transportation has developed a procedure for preparing a preliminary signal warrant analysis based on estimated average daily traffic volumes to evaluate Traffic Impact Study Park Place Industrial Park | Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana 29 I-90 Frontage Road & Nelson Road Mitigation Analyses The intersection of the I-90 Frontage Road and Nelson Road was first evaluated with the addition of separate, dedicated left- and right-turn lanes on the southbound, Nelson Road approach. With that modification, level of service for southbound right turns was improved to LOS A and C during the weekday, AM and PM peak hours, respectively. However, southbound left turns are projected to operate at LOS E during the weekday, AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM. Thereby, additional mitigation of the intersection should be considered. The I-90 Frontage Road and Nelson Road intersection was then evaluated under signalized traffic control using a 95 second cycle length similar to the signalized analyses for the East Valley Center Spur Road and its intersections with East Valley Center Road and the I-90 Frontage Road. Under signalized control, the intersection of the I-90 Frontage Road and Nelson Road is estimated to operate at LOS A during both the weekday, AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, the City of Bozeman requires that any proposed mitigation measures have a minimum design life of fifteen years from the time of their installation. Analyses of estimated 2045 traffic volumes at the intersection of the I-90 Frontage Road and Nelson Road were also completed per the City of Bozeman’s requirement. The results of the capacity and level of service analyses are summarized in Appendix H and the following tables: Table 6: Intersection Operations Summary for the I-90 Frontage Road & Nelson Road with the Addition of Separate, Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes – Page 30 Table 7: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Conditions Intersection Operations Summary for the I-90 Frontage Road & Nelson Road under Signalized Control – Page 31 Table 8: Estimated 2045 Total Traffic Conditions Intersection Operations Summary for the I-90 Frontage Road & Nelson Road under Signalized Control – Page 32 Site Accessibility As shown in the traffic operations analyses for the study area intersections, the proposed accesses to Nelson Road serving the Park Place Industrial Park Subdivision will function with acceptable capacity and within reasonable levels of service as full access approaches. Adequate queue storage should be provided at each of the proposed accesses to Nelson Road as well as for each lot accessing the internal Loop Road within the development. Auxiliary turn lane analyses found that northbound left turn lanes at the proposed accesses to Nelson Road would not be required based on the estimated traffic volumes at each approach per MDT’s analysis procedures for auxiliary left turn lanes on two-lane highways with a Traffic Impact Study Park Place Industrial Park | Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana 30 posted speed limit of 45 mph. Improving Nelson Road to a City of Bozeman collector roadway standard may allow for the inclusion of a two-way left turn lane for the long-term functionality of Nelson Road. Table 6: Intersection Operations Summary for the I-90 Frontage Road & Nelson Road with the Addition of Separate, Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes Analysis Scenario Vehicular Movement LOS Delay (sec/veh) Entry Volume (veh) Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c) HCS 95% Max Queue Length (veh) HCS 95% Max Queue Length (ft) Weekday, AM Peak Hour Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Conditions Stop-Controlled Intersection with Added SB Turn Lanes EB L A 8.2 180 0.16 0.6 15 EB T A - 450 0.26 0.0 0 WB T A - 165 0.10 0.0 0 WB R A - 77 0.05 0.0 0 SB L E 39.9 71 0.45 2.1 53 SB R A 9.7 61 0.08 0.3 8 Weekday, PM Peak Hour Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Conditions Stop-Controlled Intersection with Added SB Turn Lanes EB L A 9.0 63 0.07 0.2 5 EB T A - 278 0.16 0.0 0 WB T A - 532 0.31 0.0 0 WB R A - 76 0.05 0.0 0 SB L D 28.8 85 0.38 1.7 43 SB R C 15.8 163 0.35 1.5 38 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; and SB = Southbound L = Left; T = Through; and R = Right = Substandard Level-of-Service BOZEMAN HEALTH MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Project No. 17095.01 prepared for: Bozeman Health 915 Highland Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59715 prepared by: Sanderson Stewart 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 July 2018 Bozeman Health Medical Office Development TIS 10 Trip generation projections provide an estimate of the total number of trips that would be generated by a proposed development. However, in order to estimate the net number of new trips made by personal vehicles external to the site, adjustments must often be made to account for internal capture trips, pass-by trips, and trips made by alternate modes. Table 3: Existing Conditions (2018) Capacity Calculation Summary Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) EB 15.8 C 1 22.7 C 1 WB 16.5 C 1 15.6 C 1 NB 2.5 A 1 0.7 A 1 SB 0.4 A 1 0.9 A 1 EB 11.7 B 1 14.4 B 1 WB 15.8 C 1 17.9 C 1 NB 1.6 A 1 0.8 A 1 SB 0.9 A 1 0.8 A 1 EB 22.3 C 16 23.7 C 17 WB 20.9 C 10 26.3 C 16 NB 33.1 C 5 31.5 C 4 SB 35.7 D 7 32.0 C 5 Intersection 25.6 C --26.5 C -- EB 0.3 A 0 0.0 A 0 WB ------------ SB 5.0 A 0 5.0 A 0 EB 11.2 B 1 12.6 B 1 NB 0.2 A 0 0.4 A 0 SB ------------ EB 15.1 B 14 13.3 B 21 WB 13.0 B 12 10.1 B 12 NB 18.7 B 6 22.6 C 7 SB 21.7 C 6 25.1 C 6 Intersection 15.3 B --13.5 B -- EB 8.0 A 10 6.3 A 10 WB 11.7 B 8 10.6 B 17 SB 27.5 C 8 26.4 C 8 Intersection 12.9 B --10.9 B -- EB 10.8 B 2 10.4 B 1 WB 10.5 B 2 13.1 B 3 NB 10.6 B 2 10.6 B 2 SB 12.5 B 3 12.4 B 3 Intersection 11.2 B --12.0 B -- Intersection Control Two-Way Stop Controlled (EB/WB) Intersection Approach Existing (2018) AM Peak PM Peak Cottonwood Road & West Babcock Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop Controlled (EB/WB) Cottonwood Road & Fallon Street Intersection Control Signalized Huffine Lane & Cottonwood Road Intersection Control One-Way Stop Controlled (SB) Alpha Drive & Winnow Circle Intersection Control One-Way Stop Controlled (EB) Huffine Lane & Ferguson Avenue Intersection Control All-Way Stop Controlled Cottonwood Road & Stucky Road Cottonwood Road & Alpha Drive Intersection Control Signalized Huffine Lane & Gooch Hill Road Intersection Control Signalized HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst Audrey Stoltzfus Intersection Cottonwood & Fallon Agency/Co.Sanderson Stewart Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 6/25/2018 East/West Street Fallon Street Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Cottonwood Road Time Analyzed AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)1.00 Project Description Bozeman Health - Cottonwood/Huffine Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume, V (veh/h)3 8 44 18 6 12 2 55 207 31 2 38 323 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 7 6 17 0 0 4 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 6.4 4.1 6.4 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.50 7.04 7.62 6.84 6.90 6.40 4.18 6.40 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.37 3.56 4.17 3.30 2.50 2.24 2.50 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)60 40 62 44 Capacity, c (veh/h)595 372 1162 1295 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.03 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)11.7 15.8 8.3 7.9 Level of Service, LOS B C A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.7 15.8 1.6 0.9 Approach LOS B C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 7/9/2018 4:08:58 PM Cottonwood_&_Fallon_AM_existing.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst Audrey Stoltzfus Intersection Cottonwood & Fallon Agency/Co.Sanderson Stewart Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 6/25/2018 East/West Street Fallon Street Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Cottonwood Road Time Analyzed PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)1.00 Project Description Bozeman Health - Cottonwood/Huffine Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume, V (veh/h)15 11 53 24 8 42 2 47 416 46 1 30 286 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 6.4 4.1 6.4 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.50 6.90 7.58 6.50 6.90 6.40 4.10 6.40 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.30 3.54 4.00 3.30 2.50 2.20 2.50 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)89 83 55 35 Capacity, c (veh/h)471 363 1225 1038 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.23 0.04 0.03 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.7 0.9 0.1 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)14.4 17.9 8.1 8.6 Level of Service, LOS B C A A Approach Delay (s/veh)14.4 17.9 0.8 0.8 Approach LOS B C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.2.1 Generated: 7/9/2018 4:12:24 PM Cottonwood_&_Fallon_PM_existing.xtw TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for GALLATIN CENTER LOT 12 DEVELOPMENT Bozeman, Montana Prepared for MADISON ENGINEERING Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 November 15, 2018 Gallatin Center Lot 12 TIS page 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY intersections with Catron Street and Cattail Street would operate at LOS “F”. Two movements at the N 19th Avenue and Cattail Street intersection would have one LOS grade lower with the northbound left-turn operating at LOS “F” and the and the eastbound thru movement would operate at LOS “E”. The overall intersection LOS would be LOS “E” and the northbound queue length would be 200 feet longer than the available bay storage length. LTR LTR L L Control Delay (s/veh)12.3 13.4 7.4 7.5 LOS BBAA V/C Ratio 0.21 0.36 0.02 0.03 Queue Length (95%)1211 LR L Control Delay (s/veh)10.2 7.7 LOS BA V/C Ratio 0.15 0.09 Queue Length (95%)11 LLLTRLTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.8 20.2 53.3 LOS AACF V/C Ratio 0.01 0.06 0.52 0.82 Queue Length (95%)0137 LR L Control Delay (s/veh)12.7 8.3 LOS BA V/C Ratio 0.36 0.19 Queue Length (95%)21 LLLTRLTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.9 8.2 14.3 65.8 LOS AABF V/C Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.97 Queue Length (95%)10212 LR L Control Delay (s/veh)25.3 12.2 8.9 LOS DB A V/C Ratio 0.27 0.43 0.29 Queue Length (95%)23 2 LRLTRLTRLTR Control Delay (s/veh)31.7 28.8 25.7 26.0 37.0 23.7 48.4 33.1 27.0 LOS CCCCDCDCC V/C Ratio 0.54 0.34 0.02 0.06 0.41 0.66 0.21 0.70 0.30 Queue Length (95%)11 4 1 1 5 11 3 12 3 RL Control Delay (s/veh)14.7 13.0 LOS BB V/C Ratio 0.20 0.27 Queue Length (95%)12 LTR LTR LTR L T R Control Delay (s/veh)41.2 73.8 31.6 41.7 153.4 47.5 18.2 31.1 14.7 LOS DE CD F DBCB V/C Ratio 0.68 0.89 0.05 0.15 1.23 0.94 0.04 0.66 0.09 Queue Length (95%)12 9 1 2 30 22 1 13 3 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 12.8 LOS AB V/C Ratio 0.05 0.25 Queue Length (95%)11 Cattail Street & Site Access B Movement Group OVERALL N 19th Avenue & Cattail Drive 59.3 E 1.38 Movement Group NA Movement Group NA N 19th Avenue & Burke Street Valley Center Drive & Catron Street Movement Group OVERALL N 19th Avenue & Valley Center Drive 29.2 C 0.58 Movement Group NA Cattail Street & Max Avenue Movement Group NA Max Avenue & Lot 12 Existing Access Movement Group NA Catron Street & Max Avenue Movement Group NA N 27th Avenue & Catron Street Movement Group NA N 27th Avenue & Cattail Street Table 7. Future Plus Phases 1&2 Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Movement Group NA Gallatin Center Lot 12 TIS page 24 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY MITIGATION MEASURES Other than LOS impacts on N 19th Avenue intersections, which are under the jurisdiction of the Montana Department of Transportation, the only intersections with measurable impacts would be the Max Avenue intersections. Since the southbound approach to the intersection of Catron Street and Max Avenue is a private driveway, existing operational deficiencies on the driveway approach must be addressed by the private entities. At the intersection of Cattail Street and Max Avenue, Phase 1 development impacts are just barely enough to cause the southbound approach to operate at LOS “D”. However, the site access to Cattail Street would operate at LOS “B”. Since site traffic impacting the intersection of Cattail Street and Max Avenue would have the option of using access B on Cattail Street, it is extremely likely that drivers would migrate to the access with the least delay, thereby decreasing demand for the southbound approach at the Max Avenue and Cattail Street intersection. A sensitivity analysis was completed to determine the balance point where egress traffic from the site would have relatively equal delay. That is, whether access A or access B would be the chosen path to arrive at the N 19th Avenue intersection on Cattail Street. It was determined that approximately 50% of the 227 egress trips that were assigned to the eastbound right-turn movement at Access A, in the pm hour for Phase 1 development, could be redistributed to the southbound left-turn egress movement at Access B. Capacity calculations in Appendix C indicate that the southbound approach from Max Avenue at the Cattail Street intersection would operate at LOS “C” with 19.0 seconds delay per vehicle and the southbound egress movement at the Access B site approach would operate at LOS B with a 13.1 second average delay per vehicle. Internal vehicle queues at Access B would be 2 vehicles maximum and on the southbound Max Avenue approach to Cattail Street the maximum queue would be 3 vehicles. Thus, alternative access movements would ensure that delay at the Max Avenue & Cattail Street intersection is minimized. The driver selection process will mitigate potential efficiency impacts at the intersection of Cattail Street and Max Avenue for Phase 1 development. Similar analysis was completed for future traffic projections that included development of Phase 2 in combination with increased traffic created by In-process developments. It was determined that the south Max Avenue approach to Cattail would operate at LOS “E” and mitigation would be required. A number of future mitigation concepts were tested including: all-way stop control, a westbound right-turn lane, a southbound left-turn lane and combinations or the three. It was determined that none of the concepts would adequately address efficiency impacts. Thus, a higher level of traffic control would be required. A traffic signal concepts was tested and it was determined that adequate LOS could be achieved for future traffic conditions without adding auxiliary traffic lanes. Appendix C contains Gallatin Center Lot 12 TIS page 25 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY capacity calculations that indicate the signalized intersection would operate at an overall LOS “B” with none of the movements operating less than LOS “C”. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic assignments, and capacity calculations show that the development of Gallatin Center Lot 12 would not have appreciable impacts on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. The only intersection of concern would be the Cattail Street and Max Avenue intersection. Operations of the intersection when Phase 1 (Winco Supermarket) is constructed would experience some congestion on the southbound approach initially, but would quickly stabilize when drivers become familiar with the quickest way to exit the parking lot using either the Cattail Street access or the Max Avenue access. In the future, depending on In-process development schedules and construction of Gallatin Center Lot 12 Phase 2, congestion will increase to the point that a traffic signal will be warranted and justified. Exact timing of signal installation would very difficult to determine since it would be dependent upon development schedules within the area. In addition, long range plans for construction of N 27th Avenue from Baxter Lane to Valley Center Drive would have a significant impact on directional traffic flows for the entire area within and around the Gallatin Center Subdivision. Capacity analysis within this study has indicated that the proposed sites accesses would operate at LOS “C” or better initially and well into the future. The approaches would be approximately 32’ in width which will allow expeditious ingress and egress movements. The capacity analysis also indicated that a single egress lane would be adequate at all accesses and the internal queuing would require no more than 2 vehicles lengths for storage. The western most access to Cattail Street would only serve delivery operations and would occur at off-peak traffic periods. From examination of the site plan, it appears that WB-67 trucks will be able to enter the approach and maneuver within the site without blocking the access or any portion of the street. Sight distance measurements indicate that trucks exiting the access would have adequate sight distance to oncoming traffic on Cattail Street/N 27th Avenue. Cottonwood & Ida Mixed-Use Development TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Project No. 06020.03 prepared for: OpenScope Studio 1776 18th Street San Francisco, CA 94107 prepared by: Sanderson Stewart 106 East Babcock Bozeman, MT 59715 January 2019 Cottonwood and Ida mixed-use development TIS 13 Table 3: Existing Conditions (2018) Capacity Calculations Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) EB 27.7 C 7 26.8 C 6 WB 25.0 C 1 26.2 C 1 NB 4.9 A 5 5.9 A 4 SB 8.6 A 7 11.2 B 11 Intersection 13.5 B --12.6 B -- EB 23.8 C 3 23.8 C 4 WB 23.3 C 2 23.6 C 3 NB 2.8 A 4 3.4 A 5 SB 3.4 A 5 3.8 A 6 Intersection 7.3 A --7.7 A -- EB 22.3 C 3 86.7 F 7 WB 16.0 C 1 37.2 E 4 NB 0.8 A 1 1.7 A 1 SB 1.3 A 1 0.8 A 1 Intersection 5.6 A --15.6 C -- WB 21.5 C 5 27.6 C 8 NB 5.6 A 4 8.7 A 6 SB 5.7 A 3 9.1 A 8 Intersection 10.0 A --13.5 B -- EB 16.0 B 6 22.9 C 8 WB 17.0 B 7 18.0 B 7 NB 10.2 B 1 13.4 B 1 SB 11.5 B 3 16.6 B 5 Intersection 16.1 B --20.0 C -- EB 7.2 A --7.1 A -- WB 7.2 A --7.1 A -- NB 0.0 A --6.4 A -- Intersection 7.2 A --7.1 A -- EB 7.1 A --7.1 A -- WB 7.2 A --7.2 A -- NB 0.0 A --8.1 A -- Intersection 7.2 A --7.2 A -- EB 0.0 A --0.0 A -- NB 0.0 A --7.3 A -- SB 7.8 A --7.5 A -- Intersection 7.8 A --7.4 A -- EB 7.6 A --6.5 A -- WB 7.2 A --7.8 A -- NB 7.4 A --7.2 A -- SB 7.2 A --7.2 A -- Intersection 7.4 A --7.2 A -- Ida Avenue & Cottonwood Street Ida Avenue & Aspen Street Intersection Control Uncontrolled Front Street & Aspen Street Intersection Control Uncontrolled Main Street & Broadway Avenue Intersection Control Uncontrolled Ida Avenue & Front Street Intersection Control Uncontrolled Rouse Avenue & Peach Street Intersection Control Signalized Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Intersection Control Signalized Rouse Avenue & Oak Street Intersection Control Signalized Rouse Avenue & Tamarack Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop Controlled (EB/WB) Intersection Control Signalized Intersection Approach Existing (2018) AM Peak PM Peak West Park Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Prepared For: 8FC, LLC PO Box 11388 Bozeman, MT 59719-1388 May, 2022 130 South Howie Street Helena, Montana 59601 406-459-1443 West Park Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 1 May 2022 West Park Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The West Park Neighborhood is a 19-acre development located north of Babcock Street in Bozeman, MT. The project would include up to 500 new residential units and would produce up to 2,376 new daily vehicle trips in the area at full build-out. As proposed, the West Park Neighborhood will not create any new roadway capacity problems on adjacent roadways that have not been identified with other recent projects. A traffic signal is planned for installation at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Fallon Street to serve the currently proposed commercial projects along the Fallon Street corridor which will correct the existing LOS issues at this location. The West Park Neighborhood will have little impact on the need for the traffic signal at Fallon Street. It is likely that the intersection of Durston Road and Laurel Parkway will experience high levels of delay by full buildout of the based on the current growth trends in this area. While the West Park Neighborhood will not create a failure condition at this intersection, it and the remaining Norton Ranch developments will absorb most of the remaining reserve capacity at this four-way STOP. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This document studies the possible effects on the surrounding road system from a proposed residential subdivision located west of Cottonwood Road between Babcock Street and Durston Road in Bozeman, Montana. The document also identifies any traffic mitigation efforts that the development may require. The site is located north of Babcock Street just east of the Norton Ranch Phase 5 development site. The project would be developed to include up to 500 new residential apartment units on 40 acres of property. Based on the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations, the developers must study all effected intersections within ½ mile of the proposed development, which includes the intersections of Cottonwood Road with Durston Road, Babcock Street, and Fallon Street, and the intersection of Laurel Parkway with Durston Road. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed development property currently consists of a 40-acre parcel of undeveloped land located between Babcock Street and Durston Road, just east of the Norton East Ranch Phase 5 development. The topography in this area is flat. See Figure 1 for a location map of the proposed development. West Park Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 9 May 2022 Laurel Parkway & Durston Road will function adequately through full buildout of the Norton East Ranch Phase 5 and the West Park Neighborhood but will have little to no reserve capacity for future growth. It will eventually be necessary to reconstruct this intersection as a traffic signal or roundabout. However, this improvement is not immanently needed. The first phases of the West Park Neighborhood could be constructed with little impact to the intersection. By Phase 4, the intersection would have little to no reserve capacity under the existing four-way STOP configuration and will occasionally experience higher level of vehicle delay. See Table 5 for LOS by phase at Durston Road and Laurel Parkway. Table 4 –Future Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS Laurel Parkway & Durston Road 24.2 C 12.8 B Cottonwood Road & Durston Road 21.1 C 15.2 B Cottonwood Road & Babcock Street 14.0 B 13.3 B Cottonwood Road & Fallon Street* 81.7/343 F/F 47.1/165 E/F *Northbound/Southbound or Westbound/Eastbound Side Street LOS and Delay Table 5– Laurel Parkway Level of Service By Phase AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Laurel Parkway & Durston Road Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS West Park Phase 1 18.5 C 11.4 B West Park Phase 2 19.7 C 11.7 B West Park Phase 3 21.6 C 12.2 B West Park Phase 4 24.2 C 12.8 B Long Range Traffic Projections The 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan projects traffic conditions on roadways throughout Bozeman through 2040 and considers all anticipated land development projects which are expected to occur in this area of Bozeman over the next 25 years. The Bozeman Transportation Master Plan suggests that traffic volumes on Cottonwood Road will increase to 26,000 VPD and the V/C on Cottonwood Road will be 0.8. To evaluate the 15-year traffic volume projections for this area ATS reviewed the 2040 traffic West Park Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 10 May 2022 volumes from the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan and scaled the anticipated traffic volume growth to likely 2037 conditions using an overall traffic volume growth rate of 160%. This growth factor was applied on top of the projected traffic volumes calculated for the West Park Neighborhood. The results of this analysis suggest that the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Fallon Street will require signalization to continue truncation through 2037 but both the intersection of Fallon and Babcock will function at LOS B through 2037 with traffic signals. The intersection of Durston Road with Laurel Parkway will also likely operate at LOS F by 2033 with the current four-way STOP control configuration and may require the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout to improve operations. H. IMPACT SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS As proposed, the West Park Neighborhood will not create any new roadway capacity problems on adjacent roadways that have not been identified with other recent projects. A traffic signal is planned for installation at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Fallon Street to serve the currently proposed commercial projects along the Fallon Street corridor which will correct the existing LOS issues at this location. The West Park Neighborhood will have little impact on the need for the traffic signal at Fallon Street. It is likely that the intersection of Durston Road and Laurel Parkway will experience high levels of delay by full buildout of the based on the current growth trends in this area. While the West Park Neighborhood will not create a failure condition at this intersection, it and the remaining Norton Ranch developments will absorb most of the remaining reserve capacity at this four-way STOP. HCS7 All-Way Stop Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Laurel Parkway & Durston Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/11/2019 East/West Street Durston Road Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Laurel Parkway Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Time Analyzed AM Peak - Existing Project Description West Park Lanes Vehicle Volume and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 4 466 4 8 277 50 8 1 80 50 4 122 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LT R Flow Rate, v (veh/h)4 470 8 327 8 81 54 122 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 Departure Headway and Service Time Initial Departure Headway, hd (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization, x 0.004 0.418 0.007 0.291 0.007 0.072 0.048 0.108 Final Departure Headway, hd (s)6.22 5.73 6.40 5.78 7.48 6.29 7.26 6.08 Final Degree of Utilization, x 0.007 0.749 0.014 0.525 0.017 0.141 0.109 0.206 Move-Up Time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.92 3.43 4.10 3.48 5.18 3.99 4.96 3.78 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)4 470 8 327 8 81 54 122 Capacity 578 628 562 623 481 573 496 592 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 6.7 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.8 Control Delay (s/veh)9.0 23.5 9.2 14.7 10.3 10.0 10.8 10.3 Level of Service, LOS A C A B B B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)23.4 14.6 10.0 10.5 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 17.4 C Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™AWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 5/5/2022 9:22:46 AMLaurelAM.xaw HCS7 All-Way Stop Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Laurel Parkway & Durston Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/11/2019 East/West Street Durston Road Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Laurel Parkway Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Time Analyzed PM Peak - Existing Project Description West Park Lanes Vehicle Volume and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 63 286 8 17 277 67 4 1 21 29 1 38 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LT R Flow Rate, v (veh/h)63 294 17 344 4 22 30 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 Departure Headway and Service Time Initial Departure Headway, hd (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization, x 0.056 0.261 0.015 0.306 0.004 0.020 0.027 0.034 Final Departure Headway, hd (s)5.59 5.09 5.62 4.97 6.77 5.60 6.68 5.48 Final Degree of Utilization, x 0.098 0.415 0.027 0.475 0.008 0.034 0.056 0.058 Move-Up Time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.29 2.79 3.32 2.67 4.47 3.30 4.38 3.18 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)63 294 17 344 4 22 30 38 Capacity 644 708 640 724 532 643 539 657 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 2.0 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)8.9 11.4 8.5 12.1 9.5 8.5 9.8 8.5 Level of Service, LOS A B A B A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.9 11.9 8.7 9.1 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 11.1 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™AWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 5/5/2022 9:24:54 AMLaurelPM.xaw HCS7 All-Way Stop Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Laurel Parkway & Durston Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/11/2019 East/West Street Durston Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Laurel Parkway Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak Project Description West Park Lanes Vehicle Volume and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 4 466 45 50 277 50 56 11 127 50 13 122 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LT R Flow Rate, v (veh/h)4 511 50 327 56 138 63 122 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 Departure Headway and Service Time Initial Departure Headway, hd (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization, x 0.004 0.454 0.044 0.291 0.050 0.123 0.056 0.108 Final Departure Headway, hd (s)6.79 6.24 7.00 6.38 7.87 6.73 7.79 6.68 Final Degree of Utilization, x 0.008 0.886 0.097 0.579 0.122 0.258 0.136 0.226 Move-Up Time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)4.49 3.94 4.70 4.08 5.57 4.43 5.49 4.38 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)4 511 50 327 56 138 63 122 Capacity 531 577 514 564 457 535 462 539 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 10.3 0.3 3.7 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.9 Control Delay (s/veh)9.5 39.4 10.5 17.5 11.7 11.8 11.7 11.3 Level of Service, LOS A E B C B B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)39.1 16.6 11.7 11.5 Approach LOS E C B B Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 24.2 C Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™AWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 5/5/2022 9:25:35 AMLaurelAMwith.xaw HCS7 All-Way Stop Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Laurel Parkway & Durston Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/11/2019 East/West Street Durston Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Laurel Parkway Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak Project Description West Park Lanes Vehicle Volume and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 63 286 59 67 277 67 53 11 70 29 11 38 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LT R Flow Rate, v (veh/h)63 345 67 344 53 81 40 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 Departure Headway and Service Time Initial Departure Headway, hd (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization, x 0.056 0.307 0.060 0.306 0.047 0.072 0.036 0.034 Final Departure Headway, hd (s)6.13 5.53 6.15 5.50 7.14 6.03 7.11 6.03 Final Degree of Utilization, x 0.107 0.530 0.114 0.525 0.105 0.136 0.079 0.064 Move-Up Time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.83 3.23 3.85 3.20 4.84 3.73 4.81 3.73 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)63 345 67 344 53 81 40 38 Capacity 587 651 585 655 504 597 506 597 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.4 3.1 0.4 3.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)9.6 14.3 9.6 14.1 10.7 9.7 10.4 9.1 Level of Service, LOS A B A B B A B A Approach Delay (s/veh)13.6 13.4 10.1 9.8 Approach LOS B B B A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 12.8 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™AWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 5/5/2022 9:26:04 AMLaurelPMwith.xaw Fowler South Residential Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Prepared For: Caddis Engineering & Land Surveying 226 Timberline Dr Bozeman, MT 59718 September, 2023 130 South Howie Street Helena, Montana 59601 406-459-1443 Fowler South Development Traffic Impact Study Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 4 August, 2023 area have been relatively stable. The MDT data suggests South 19th Avenue to the south of Bozeman has experienced 4 percent growth over the past 9 years. It should also be noted that the MDT traffic data for Stucky Road indicates an ADT volume of only 3,700 VPD in 2020 while the new data collected by ATS in 2023 suggested the road carried more than 8,000 VPD along the same section. While the MDT traffic data is generally reliable, this section of road may not be represented accurately within the database. Table 1 – Historic Average Daily Traffic Data (Source: MDT) Location 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 S 19th Ave – N of Stucky Rd. #16-3B-023 9,940 11,310 13,740 13,458 13,229 13,242 13,321 10,172 10,986 11,063 Stucky Rd – E of Cottonwood #16-3A-037 NA NA 4,260 3,165 3,184 3,149 3,199 3,459 3,822 3,700 Cottonwood S of Blackwood #16-3A-020 NA 2,730 3,190 3,567 3,538 3,591 3,613 3,360 2,789 2,809 S 19th Ave – N of Goldenstein #16-3A-023 NA 4,430 6,340 6,125 6,076 7,395 7,439 6,918 6,680 6,727 Level of Service Using the data collected for this project, ATS conducted a Level of Service (LOS) analysis at area intersections. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) version 8.2. Intersections are graded from A to F representing the average delay that a vehicle entering an intersection can expect. Typically, a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak-hour conditions. Table 2 shows the existing 2023 LOS for the AM and PM peak hours without additional traffic from the proposed development. The LOS calculations are included in Appendix C. The table shows that the existing STOP controlled intersections in this area are currently operating within acceptable limits. The intersections of Stucky Road with Fowler Lane and 27th Avenue are experiencing typical levels of vehicle delay which currently does not require mitigation. The intersections of Bennett Boulevard and Graf Street with 27th Avenue have relatively low traffic volumes and are experiencing minimal delays. HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Stucky & 27th Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 8/23/2023 East/West Street Stucky Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Future PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Fowler South Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)464 38 92 565 30 114 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)92 144 Capacity, c (veh/h)1057 387 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.37 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 1.7 Control Delay (s/veh)8.7 1.1 19.7 Level of Service (LOS)A A C Approach Delay (s/veh)2.2 19.7 Approach LOS A C Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 9/22/2023 1:44:36 PM27thPM2026.xtw HCS All-Way Stop Control Report General and Site Information Lanes Analyst ATS Agency/Co.ATS Date Performed 8/23/2023 Analysis Year 2026 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed Future AM Peak Project Description Fowler South Apartments Intersection 27th & Graf Jurisdiction City of Bozeman East/West Street Graf Street North/South Street 27th Avenue Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Turning Movement Demand Volumes Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)8 89 1 12 32 18 1 29 28 37 13 1 % Thrus in Shared Lane Lane Flow Rate and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate, v (veh/h)8 90 12 50 1 57 37 14 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Initial Departure Headway, hd (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial Degree of Utilization, x 0.007 0.080 0.011 0.044 0.001 0.051 0.033 0.012 Final Departure Headway, hd (s)5.35 4.85 5.38 4.63 5.47 4.62 5.47 4.92 Final Degree of Utilization, x 0.012 0.121 0.018 0.064 0.002 0.073 0.056 0.019 Move-Up Time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.05 2.55 3.08 2.33 3.17 2.32 3.17 2.62 Capacity, Delay and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lane L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 L1 L2 L3 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR Flow Rate, v (veh/h)8 90 12 50 1 57 37 14 Capacity (veh/h)673 743 669 777 659 779 659 732 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 8.2 8.2 7.6 8.2 7.7 8.5 7.7 Level of Service, LOS A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) | LOS 8.2 A 7.8 A 7.7 A 8.3 A Intersection Delay (s/veh) | LOS 8.0 A Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™AWSC Version 2023 Generated: 9/22/2023 1:48:16 PMGrafAM2026.xaw Traffic Impact Study BOZEMAN APARTMENTS Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana Prepared For Silver Creek Equity January 2024 Project No. 23-0108 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714 ● (406) 209-3960 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com PTOE Certification – 2020 2 Traffic Impact Study – Bozeman Apartments January 2024 transit access in the area around the proposed development as well as other locations throughout Bozeman. Additionally, bike lanes are provided on North 27th Avenue. Sidewalks do not currently exist adjacent to the Bozeman Apartments site along North 25th Avenue nor Breeze Lane. Transit Service Streamline’s Blueline route provides service adjacent to the proposed Bozeman Apartments site development project along Tschache Lane. This route includes a stop at the intersection of North 27th Avenue and Tschache Lane and is available on weekdays and weekends. Proposed Development The Bozeman Apartments site development proposed to be developed includes: A single structure apartment building with a mix of two single story elements on the south and west facing portions of the building that include 15 units adjoining a five-story structure that includes a parking garage on the first floor and a combined total of 97 units in the second through fifth floors. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 488 average weekday vehicle trips and 38 vehicle trips during weekday, AM peak hour plus 45 during the weekday, PM peak hour. Pedestrian and/or bicyclist-related trips may comprise a limited number of trips with the proposed development due to its location in relation to activity centers near the study area. Access to the site is proposed via a proposed approach via North 25th Avenue, which is a local street. It is anticipated that the proposed Bozeman Apartments site development will be fully occupied by the year 2028. Traffic Operations Existing Conditions Capacity and level of service (LOS) analyses were performed for the intersection of North 27th Avenue and Tschache Lane for existing traffic and non-motorized user conditions based on existing traffic control and intersection geometry. The analyses of existing traffic operations found that the intersection is currently operating within acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better). No specific crash experience concerns were identified for the intersection of North 27th Avenue and Tschache Lane. Projected Traffic No substandard traffic operations or other transportation related impacts were identified through the year 2028 analyses for estimated background or total traffic conditions at the intersection of North 27th Avenue and Tschache Lane. Conclusions & Recommendations Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic operations, and considerations for alternative modes of transportation reveal that the proposed Bozeman Apartments site development project will have minimal impact on area traffic operations. Based on the analyses included herein, the following are recommended as appropriate: 20 Traffic Impact Study – Bozeman Apartments January 2024 Transportation Analyses Analysis Scenarios To identify significant project impacts, the following scenarios for the intersection of North 27th Avenue and Tschache Lane were evaluated: Existing Conditions (2022) Consists of an operational analysis of year 2022 count data included as part of this study. No Build Scenario – Estimated 2028 Background Traffic Volumes Consists of projected, non-site background traffic volumes. Full Buildout Scenario – Estimated 2028 Total Traffic Volumes Consists of estimated 2028 background traffic volumes in combination with forecast traffic from the proposed Bozeman Apartments site development. Analysis Methodologies Operations The intersection analyses employ methodologies based on empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other authorities, utilizing level of service (LOS) as the performance measure to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as travel speed, traffic volumes, roadway and intersection capacity, travel delay, and traffic interruptions. Operating conditions are designated as LOS A through LOS F, representing the most to least favorable. LOS for intersections is determined by control delay, which is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from the free flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. LOS characteristics based on varying durations of average vehicle delay as listed in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the TRB are summarized in Appendix A. Unsignalized Intersections The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on Chapter 20 of the HCM for two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections. The LOS criteria are applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections. The TWSC analyses were performed using HCS TWSC Version 8.2 developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. The HCM methodology for evaluating TWSC intersections is based on gap acceptance and conflicting traffic for vehicles stopped on minor street approaches. The critical gap (or minimum acceptable gap) is defined as the minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows entry for one minor street vehicle. Average control delay and LOS for the minor street approach(es) is/are reported. LOS is not defined by the HCM for the intersection because major street traffic volumes and operations may skew the results of the LOS analyses. 7TH & ASPEN DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 24094 Caitlin Tamposi Boundary Development 233 East Main Street, Suite 404 Bozeman, MT 59715 May 2024 7th & Aspen Development TIS 16 Mitigation Alternatives A variety of potential mitigation improvement options were evaluated to address existing concerns and/or projected impacts for study area streets and intersections. The following sections provide details on that analysis. Traffic Signals Traffic signal warrants were evaluated at the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection using criteria outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for the Existing Conditions (2024), Phases 1&2 (2026), and Future (2039) traffic volume scenarios. The MUTCD presents several warrants that can be considered based on traffic volumes, school crossings, crash history, and others. For the purposes of this analysis, all but Warrant 9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) were evaluated. Warrant 9 was not evaluated because there are no railroad crossings near the intersection. Additionally, satisfaction of the Peak Hour warrant alone should not be considered as warranting a signal, as it is primarily meant for application at office complexes, manufacturing plants, or other high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Traffic signal warrant worksheets for the Existing Conditions (2024), Phases 1&2 (2026), and Future (2039) scenarios can be found in Appendix D. No traffic signal warrants are currently met at the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection but Warrants 1 and 2 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume and Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) are projected to be met in the Phases 1&2 (2026) and Future (2039) scenarios. This may not be a preferred location for a traffic signal due to its proximity to the North 7th Avenue/West Tamarack Street intersection and lack of additional connectivity to West Aspen Street, but due to the proposed future density of development along North 7th Avenue a traffic signal may be beneficial at this intersection to provide controlled access onto North 7th Avenue for existing and proposed developments to the east and west. Additionally, spacing between West Aspen Street and West Tamarack Street is similar to the block-length spacing for traffic signals in the downtown Bozeman core area. Improved Intersection Capacity North 7th Avenue Corridor: Extension of the North 7th Avenue corridor signal coordination plan south to include the North 7th Avenue/West Peach Street intersection may improve traffic operations and help minimize queues between signals. It could also provide more reliable gaps and improve delay for drivers accessing West Aspen Street. Further improvements could likely be realized in the corridor if additional connections to the west were constructed, providing access to West Oak Street via North 11th Avenue and North 15th Avenue instead of only North 7th Avenue. North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street: Multiple options can be considered to improve operations at this intersection, which is projected to experience extreme delay in the Future (2039) scenario. A traffic signal is projected to be warranted beginning in the Phases 1&2 (2026) scenario and is projected to operate at LOS D and E on the West Aspen Street approaches during both future scenarios. Although this signal would only be approximately 300-feet from the West Tamarack Street traffic signal, this spacing is similar to that of the signals in downtown Bozeman. Another option to improve operations at this intersection would be to restrict left-turns from the minor approaches, which would improve those approaches to LOS C or better. Westbound left-turns could easily reroute to either West Tamarack Street or West Peach Street; however, eastbound left-turns would not have an alternate controlled-access option and would have to either make a right-turn followed by a U-turn at West Peach Street or utilize West Juniper Street to make a left-turn onto North 7th Avenue. 7th & Aspen Development TIS 17 A preliminary traffic simulation analysis was also performed using SimTraffic, Version 12, which showed improved results for minor approaches as compared to the HCM-based Synchro results. The simulation results indicate that “real-world” operations may provide increased gaps for access from West Aspen Street due to the signal timing coordination plan in the corridor. Synchro calculations assume random arrivals on all approaches; however, the simulation shows that platoons released by each phase of the adjacent traffic signals may provide adequate gaps for vehicles accessing North 7th Avenue. Operations should be monitored in the field to determine if minor approach vehicles experience excessive delay even with gaps provided by the coordination plan. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian demand is anticipated to increase across North 7th Avenue at its intersection with West Aspen Street due to the 7th & Aspen Development as well as another proposed residential development west of North 7th Avenue. There is currently not a crosswalk on North 7th Avenue at this intersection and the nearest protected crossing is approximately 300-feet to the north at the West Tamarack Street traffic signal. This is the recommended spacing suggested by MDT for a marked or controlled crosswalk. Therefore, a pedestrian crosswalk should be considered across North 7th Avenue at West Aspen Street. Given the existing and projected daily traffic volume and speed limit on North 7th Avenue, a pedestrian-actuated beacon or pedestrian signal should be considered, such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), also commonly known as a High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK). When considering latent and potential future demand, it is likely that either of these devices would be warranted. A HAWK would require coordination with the West Tamarack Street signal and may introduce additional delay through the North 7th Avenue corridor. Pedestrian delay and risk-taking may also increase while waiting for the appropriate time in the corridor cycle to stop mainline vehicle traffic. Therefore, a striped crosswalk with RRFBs and a median refuge area is recommended at this location. It is preferable that the crosswalk be installed on the north leg of the intersection due to vehicle volume trends and development locations. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The preceding analysis has shown that the 7th & Aspen Development will generate a moderate volume of new traffic demand for area streets and intersections. Through the planned development, it is estimated that approximately 1,012 total new external vehicle trips could be generated daily. The development plan proposes construction of three (3) multi-story buildings with 96 affordable apartments (Phases 1&2), 75 market-rate apartments, and 10,000-square feet of commercial space (Phase 3). Phases 1&2 are anticipated to be built by 2026. The Existing Conditions (2024) capacity analysis showed that the westbound approach at the North 7th Avenue/West Tamarack Street intersection operates at LOS D during both peak hours with moderate 95th percentile queuing. At the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection, the eastbound approach operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and the westbound approach operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Historical crash data was evaluated in the study area, and it was found that crash rates were equal to or lower than what would be expected based on HSM predictive methodology. Right-angle, left-turn/opposite direction, right-turn/same direction, and fixed object collisions were the reported crash types in the study area. 7th & Aspen Development TIS 18 Phases 1&2 (2026) and Future (2039) scenario intersection capacity results show worsening delay on the minor approaches at the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection, with both approaches projected to reach LOS F during both peak hours in the Future (2039) scenario and projected 95th percentile queues of up to nine (9) vehicles on the westbound approach. Lengthy 95th percentile queuing is also projected on North 7th Avenue at the West Tamarack Street signal. Traffic signal warrants were evaluated at the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection for all three (3) traffic-volume scenarios. No warrants are met at the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection with Existing Conditions (2024), but a traffic signal is considered warranted in the Phases 1&2 (2026) and Future (2039) scenarios once site volumes are added to West Aspen Street. A traffic signal may not be preferred at this intersection due to its proximity to the existing signal at the North 7th Avenue/West Tamarack Street intersection. However, a traffic signal may be beneficial at this intersection to provide controlled access onto North 7th Avenue for existing and proposed developments to the east and west, and the spacing between West Aspen Street and West Tamarack Street is similar to traffic signal spacing in the downtown Bozeman core area. A traffic signal is projected to operate at LOS D and E on the minor approaches during both future scenarios. Restricting left-turns from the minor approaches at this intersection is projected to improve minor approach operations to LOS C, but without an alternate controlled-access location, eastbound left-turns would either have to perform right-turns followed by U-turns or reroute to West Juniper Street. A preliminary simulation analysis showed that the corridor signal coordination plan may provide adequate gaps for minor approach vehicles without turning restrictions implemented, and operations should be monitored in the field to observe whether these approaches can operate without excessive delay. It is likely that improved intersection operations along the North 7th Avenue corridor could be achieved by extending the existing traffic signal coordination plan south through the North 7th Avenue/West Peach Street intersection. This change could also provide more frequent and reliable gaps for vehicles accessing North 7th Avenue from West Aspen Street and could also improve operations and queuing at the signalized intersections. Ultimately, further connections to the west of North 7th Avenue to North 11th Avenue and North 15th Avenue would facilitate the greatest improvement to failing operations for access along North 7th Avenue by providing alternate routes. Recommendations The following list of recommendations is based on the analysis results from this study and the professional judgment of the author. It should be noted that the improvements are recommended not only due to the impacts of the 7th & Aspen Development but also based on existing deficiencies present within the study area. The recommendations are made based on the preceding evaluation of existing and projected safety and operational concerns. • Operations on the minor approaches at the intersection of North 7th Avenue with West Aspen Street should be monitored as 7th & Aspen and other adjacent development trips are added to the street network to determine if some type of access restriction or higher level of traffic control should be considered at the intersection. Traffic signal warrants should also be monitored and, if deemed appropriate, a traffic signal should be considered for installation at the intersection to maintain full access and provide a protected pedestrian crossing. • If a traffic signal is not installed at the North 7th Avenue/West Aspen Street intersection, a pedestrian actuated crosswalk should be implemented across the north leg, to include an RRFB and median refuge area. Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) WB 54.3D3 53.0D6 NB 3.5A6 8.0A 13 SB 2.2A8 4.8A7 Intersection 6.2A --12.5B -- EB 0.0A0 0.1A0 WB 0.5A0 0.5A0 NB 10.7B1 12.1B1 SB 10.6B0 11.0B1 Intersection 1.6A --2.1A -- EB 36.2E1 22.4C1 WB 10.3B0 34.6D1 NB 0.1A0 0.5A1 SB 0.1A0 0.2A1 Intersection 0.1A --1.0A -- EB 2.4A0 2.4A0 WB 1.2A0 1.5A0 NB 8.5A0 8.8A0 SB 0.0A0 8.7A0 Intersection 3.4A --3.6A -- EB 0.0A0 11.7B0 WB 0.0A0 0.0A0 NB 0.0A0 0.0A0 SB 0.0A0 0.0A0 Intersection 0.0A --0.0A -- North 7th Avenue & West Tamarack Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) North 5th Avenue & West Tamarack Street North 7th Avenue & Site Driveway Intersection Control Uncontrolled Intersection Approach Existing (2024) AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Uncontrolled West Aspen Street & Site Driveway Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) North 7th Avenue & West Aspen Street SignalizedIntersection Control Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) WB 54.4D3 52.6D7 NB 3.7A7 8.7A 14 SB 2.3A9 5.2A7 Intersection 6.4A --13.0B -- EB 0.0A0 0.0A0 WB 0.5A0 0.5A0 NB 10.7B1 12.2B1 SB 10.7B0 11.0B1 Intersection 1.5A --2.0A -- EB 30.2D2 51.3F3 WB 10.4B0 54.2F2 NB 0.5A1 1.0A1 SB 0.1A0 0.2A1 Intersection 1.6A --2.8A -- EB 1.0A0 1.9A0 WB 1.2A0 1.5A0 NB 8.5A0 8.9A0 SB 0.0A0 8.7A0 Intersection 2.0A --3.1A -- EB 0.0A0 11.8B0 WB 10.5B1 13.1B1 NB 0.0A0 0.0A0 SB 0.0A0 0.0A0 Intersection 0.2A --0.1A -- North Driveway & West Aspen Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) North 7th Avenue & South Driveway North 7th Avenue & West Aspen Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) North 5th Avenue & West Tamarack Street Intersection Control Signalized Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) North 7th Avenue & West Tamarack Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) Intersection Approach Phases 1&2 (2026) AM Peak PM Peak Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) WB 53.0D4 49.2D9 NB 4.6A9 13.5B 24 SB 3.2A 12 8.4A 10 Intersection 7.1A --16.0B -- EB 0.0A0 0.0A0 WB 0.6A0 0.6A1 NB 11.6B1 14.0B1 SB 11.6B1 12.2B1 Intersection 1.8A --2.3A -- EB 71.1F4 245.0F6 WB 51.8F2 873.4F9 NB 0.5A1 1.0A1 SB 0.1A1 0.5A1 Intersection 3.5A --26.6D -- EB 0.7A0 0.9A0 WB 3.0A0 3.5A0 NB 9.0A1 9.4A1 SB 0.0A0 8.8A0 Intersection 4.3A --3.8A -- EB 0.0A0 13.5B0 WB 11.4B1 15.4C1 NB 0.0A0 0.0A0 SB 0.0A0 0.0A0 Intersection 0.2A --0.1A -- North 7th Avenue & South Driveway Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) North 7th Avenue & West Tamarack Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) North 5th Avenue & West Tamarack Street North 7th Avenue & West Aspen Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) North Driveway & West Aspen Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) Intersection Control Signalized Intersection Approach Future (2039) AM Peak PM Peak Gonzalez, 9/30/2020 Page 21 Map 9: 2019-2020 Survey Level II sites recorded within the Violett Addition, depicted on aerial imagery. 37 Gonzalez, 9/30/2020 Page 22 Map 10: 2019-2020 Survey Level II sites recorded within Karp’s Addition, depicted on aerial imagery. 38 Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) NB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 SB 2.2 A 1 0.8 A 1 WB 8.7 A 1 8.4 A 1 Intersection 2.5 A --0.9 A -- NB 0.3 A 1 0.2 A 1 SB 0.3 A 1 0.2 A 1 EB 18.1 C 1 29.5 D 1 WB 18.3 C 1 26.3 D 1 Intersection 1.9 A --1.1 A -- NB 9.2 A 1 9.3 A 1 SB 9.1 A 1 9.3 A 1 EB 1.5 A 1 1.0 A 1 WB 0.5 A 0 1.0 A 1 Intersection 5.2 A --4.5 A -- NB 9.2 A 1 9.3 A 1 SB 9.3 A 1 9.0 A 1 EB 0.5 A 1 0.7 A 1 WB 1.0 A 1 0.0 A 0 Intersection 4.2 A --4.6 A -- NB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 1 SB 0.4 A 1 0.4 A 1 EB 23.8 C 1 21.8 C 1 WB 13.9 B 1 27.1 D 1 Intersection 0.6 A --0.9 A -- NB 9.1 A 1 9.3 A 1 SB 9.3 A 1 9.4 A 1 EB 0.0 A 0 0.4 A 0 WB 1.4 A 1 0.0 A 0 Intersection 4.9 A --4.4 A -- NB 9.2 A 1 9.2 A 1 SB 9.2 A 1 9.1 A 1 EB 0.2 A 0 1.0 A 1 WB 2.3 A 1 0.0 A 0 Intersection 4.5 A --4.9 A -- NB 9.9 A 1 9.6 A 1 SB 10.1 B 1 9.8 A 1 EB 0.5 A 1 0.3 A 0 WB 0.8 A 0 0.5 A 1 Intersection 3.4 A --3.9 A -- NB 11.0 B 1 15.7 C 1 SB 11.5 B 1 14.9 B 1 WB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 Intersection 1.5 A --1.7 A -- Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Lamme Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 3rd Avenue & W Beall Street N 7th Avenue & W Villard Street N 7th Avenue & W Beall Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Beall Street Intersection Approach Existing (2023) AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Mendenhall Street Intersection Control One-Way Stop-Control (WB) N 5th Avenue & W Short Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 3rd Avenue & W Villard Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Villard Street Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB)Intersection Control Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) Avg Delay (s/veh) LOS 95th % Queue (veh) NB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 SB 2.2 A 1 0.7 A 1 WB 8.7 A 1 8.4 A 1 Intersection 2.5 A --0.7 A -- NB 0.3 A 1 0.3 A 1 SB 0.4 A 1 0.3 A 1 EB 38.8 E 3 95.8 F 2 WB 35.9 E 2 73.0 F 3 Intersection 3.7 A --3.0 A -- NB 9.6 A 1 9.5 A 1 SB 9.4 A 1 9.6 A 1 EB 1.3 A 1 0.7 A 1 WB 0.8 A 1 1.4 A 1 Intersection 5.8 A --5.0 A -- NB 9.2 A 1 9.3 A 1 SB 9.4 A 1 9.1 A 1 EB 0.5 A 1 0.7 A 1 WB 0.9 A 1 0.0 A 0 Intersection 4.2 A --4.6 A -- NB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 1 SB 0.5 A 1 0.5 A 1 EB 43.9 E 1 39.6 E 1 WB 26.2 D 1 95.9 F 3 Intersection 1.1 A --2.5 A -- NB 9.3 A 1 9.6 A 1 SB 9.4 A 1 9.6 A 1 EB 0.6 A 1 1.6 A 1 WB 1.2 A 1 0.0 A 0 Intersection 5.9 A --5.4 A -- NB 9.2 A 1 9.4 A 1 SB 9.2 A 1 9.3 A 1 EB 0.2 A 0 1.1 A 1 WB 2.0 A 1 0.0 A 0 Intersection 4.5 A --5.0 A -- NB 10.0 B 1 9.9 A 1 SB 10.2 B 1 10.1 B 1 EB 0.5 A 1 0.4 A 1 WB 0.8 A 0 0.4 A 1 Intersection 3.7 A --4.1 A -- NB 11.7 B 1 18.2 C 1 SB 12.1 B 1 16.5 C 1 WB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 Intersection 1.7 A --2.0 A -- NB 1.8 A 1 2.3 A 1 SB 0.0 A 0 0.0 A 0 EB 8.8 A 1 8.8 A 1 Intersection 3.0 A --2.2 A -- N 5th Avenue & Site Access N 5th Avenue & W Mendenhall Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) Intersection Control One-Way Stop-Control (EB) Intersection Approach Future (2038) AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control One-Way Stop-Control (WB) N 5th Avenue & W Short Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) N 7th Avenue & W Villard Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Villard Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 3rd Avenue & W Villard Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (EB/WB) N 7th Avenue & W Beall Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Lamme Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 5th Avenue & W Beall Street Intersection Control Two-Way Stop-Control (NB/SB) N 3rd Avenue & W Beall Street