Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpring Creek Village Major Subdivision Lot 4, Pre-application and planned unit development concept plan review.pdf Report compiled on July, 13 2011 REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM Doug Riley, Associate Planner and Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Tim McHarg, Director, Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: Lot 4, Spring Creek Village MaSub Pre-Application Plan Review #P-11002 and Concept P.U.D. Plan Review #Z-11109 MEETING DATE: Monday, July 25, 2011 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action (Discussion) RECOMMENDATION: City Commission acknowledge receipt of the Subdivision Pre-application Plan and Concept PUD Plan Review applications for Lot 4, Spring Creek Village Subdivision, provide comment and direction, and assist the applicant with identifying major issues with the proposal prior to making a formal application for Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan review. BACKGROUND: C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., on behalf of Spring Creek Village, LLC, has scheduled an “informal review” before the City Commission as part of a Subdivision Pre-application Plan Review and Concept PUD Plan Review for Lot 4 of Spring Creek Village Subdivision”, a 19.96- acre commercial, professional office and retail mixed-use subdivision situated along the north side of US Highway 191/West Main Street, and west of Resort Drive. Attached please find the Subdivision Pre-application Plan and Concept P.U.D. Plan applications to subdivide 19.96± acres of vacant land into a phased, twenty (20) lot urban mixed-use commercial, professional offices, and retail planned unit development. Included with the applications are the applicant’s request for multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance of the Bozeman Municipal Code as outlined in the attached Design Review Board (DRB) staff report and Development Review Committee (DRC) memorandum. Also included in the City Commission packets are the initial agency review comments on the proposal received by the Planning Office as of the date of this memorandum, as well as the minutes of the applicant’s meeting with the Design Review Board (DRB). The subject property is currently zoned BP (Business Park District) with an underlying Community Commercial Mixed Use land use designation. The City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan will apply to this project as the site is located in the West Main Street entryway overlay district. To achieve a higher outcome of intensity and commercial land uses than what the BP district anticipates, the applicants propose development of the site as a mixed-use planned unit development with a request for multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance. Requested relaxations range from allowing permitted B-2 commercial uses and construction of private streets to 100% maximum lot coverage and eliminating required yard setbacks for parking. Commission Memorandum 172 Report compiled on July, 13 2011 The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the City that improves the design, quality and character of new development. Superior site and building design that exceeds the minimum design and regulatory standards are expected with any planned unit development proposal. For these reasons, the City seeks to assure that development in the entryway corridors will result in dynamic, attractive neighborhoods and also will reflect the overall goals for high-quality design throughout the community. The purpose of the subdivision pre-application plan review and concept PUD review is to evaluate the proposal and to familiarize the applicant with the goals and objectives of the Bozeman Community Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, regulations and ordinances, and to discuss the proposed subdivision as it relates to these matters. Comments and advice provided by the advisory and decision-making bodies will assist the applicant with identifying major issues with the proposal prior to making a formal application for preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan review before the Planning Board and City Commission. Planning Staff has met and reviewed the DRB staff report and comments of the DRB with the applicants and identified the principal design elements that must be addressed for a favorable staff recommendation. While a redesign of several key components of the site is necessary, the potential to achieve a dynamic, attractive neighborhood is still possible with the direction and comments provided during this review. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the applicant’s address all points of concern identified during the subdivision pre-application and PUD concept plan review. Summary review comments, including those of the City Commission will be provided to the applicant for the purpose of redesigning the proposed planned unit development for consideration by staff and the DRB a second time prior to submitting the subdivision preliminary plat and PUD preliminary plan applications. PRINCIPAL DISCUSSION ITEMS: Based on the preliminary comments provided by the DRC, DRB, and local review agencies, the Planning Office has identified four (4) principal points for consideration and discussion with this development proposal: 1. Are the proposed authorized land uses appropriate within the context of this development, the entryway corridor and adjacent neighborhoods? · Need to maintain the intent of the BP district with high quality settings and facilities for a variety of employment opportunities while maintaining compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning. · Consider convenience uses, food processing facilities, and personal and convenience services with specific limitations as Conditional Use Permits (CUP). 2. Does the proposal recognize the importance of the West Main Street entryway corridor to the community and the need to embrace it as a greensward with high quality landscape and buildings (see page 8-9 of DRB staff report)? · Implement shared use pathway along Huffine Lane with public art and public spaces as visual accents and provide formal entryway into project for pedestrians and bicyclists. · Strong architectural forms that encourage visual interest along public way with storefronts, display windows and outdoor areas. 173 Report compiled on July, 13 2011 3. Does the project promote the intent of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan to assure that development in the entryway corridor will reflect the overall goals for high quality, superior site and building design (See page 4-8 of DRB staff report)? · Need for convenient pedestrian and bikeway connections along the north/south streets as viable streetscapes in addition to the “main street” that will connect with perimeter public ways and adjoining properties. · Place emphasis on walkable “main street” for pedestrian’s in-lieu of the automobile. Provide angled parking versus perpendicular parking along principle streets with public spaces by conveying hierarchy of internal streets through streetscape design elements. · Need to avoid presenting a “back side” to neighboring properties and public ways. · Need to position service areas to avoid conflicts with off-street parking driveways and incorporated into building design. 4. Does the proposal benefit the City as a whole and warrant the number of requested relaxations and the granting of PUD approval whereby the PUD provisions are intended to result in a dynamic and vibrant project (See page 2-3 and page 9 of staff report). · Emphasize the importance of high quality, dynamic neighborhoods that exceed the minimum regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. · Maintain the concept of a harmonious arrangement of public plazas, green spaces, buildings, parking and circulation to maintain a vibrant walkable community. · Need for vertical density as called for in the BP district. · Need for strong Development Manual to implement design guidelines. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None determined at this time. Based upon the direction provided by the Commission, City Staff will continue to work with the applicant to revise the project to address the identified issues prior to submitting formal applications. ALTERNATIVES: Other items of concern regarding the proposed development should be identified and discussed by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. Attachments: Planning Staff’s Summary Review and DRB Staff Report DRB Minutes of June 22, 2011 DRC Comments Applicant’s Subdivision Pre-Application and Concept P.U.D. Plan Applications Agency Comments 174 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 1 LOT 4, SPRING CREEK VILLAGE CONCEPT P.U.D. ZONING FILE NO. Z-11109 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-11109 --- AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR AN MIXED USE COMMERCIAL, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 19.96± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191 AND WEST OF FERGUSON AVENUE, ZONED “BP”, BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT/ SPRING CREEK VILLAGE, I.L.C. OWNER: 101 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE D BOZEMAN, MT 59715 REPRESENTATIVE: C & H ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. 1091 STONERIDGE DRIVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011 , AT 5:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 295, Spring Creek Village Resort located in the SW ¼ of Section 10, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated north of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, west of Resort Drive, and south of Fallon Street. The site is approximately 19.96 acres in size and is more commonly referenced as being situated west Lot 5, Spring Creek Village Subdivision, The Ridge Athletic Club and Valley Commons Business Park Subdivision. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant’s submittal. Proposal: The applicant, Spring Creek Village, LLC, has made application for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan Review of a mixed use commercial, professional office and retail planned unit development consisting of approximately 20 subdivision lots zoned “BP” (Business Park District). 175 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 2 The proposal is also undergoing concurrent review of a pre-application subdivision plan review of the site as a major subdivision. The multi-phased commercial/office/retail planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district and is bound on the south by the principal arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway No. 191. To the east is Lot 5 of Spring Creek Village Resort and further west is The Valley Commons Business Park Subdivision and The Ridge Athletic Club complex, and the Cottonwood Condominiums is to the northeast The BP (Business Park Mixed Use) District provides for employment areas with a variety of land uses typified by office uses and technology-oriented light industrial uses. Civic uses may also be included. Retail, residential, services, or industrial uses may also be included in an accessory or local service role. Accessory uses should occupy 20% or less of the planned Business Park Mixed Use areas. These areas are often a buffer between uses, and the scale and intensity should be carefully considered to ensure compatibility with adjacent developments. The developments should provide integrated open spaces, plazas, and pedestrian pathways to facilitate circulation and a pleasant environment. Uses may be mixed both vertically and horizontally with vertically mixed uses being encouraged. Higher intensity uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height or other transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible both within the individual districts and to adjoining zoning districts when the standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. Chapter 18.36 – Planned Unit Development: The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city that improves the design, quality and character of new development. For these reasons, the city seeks to assure that development in the entryway corridors will result in dynamic, attractive neighborhoods and also will reflect the overall goals for high-quality design throughout the community. With this application for PUD concept plan review the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance of the Bozeman Municipal Code. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city’s pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review is for discussion of the applicant’s proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. 176 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 3 Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance, Bozeman Municipal Code: The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been requested with the application for subdivision pre-application plan review and P.U.D. concept plan review: 1. Section 18.20.020.A “Authorizes Uses” to allow arts and entertainment center, convenience uses, food processing facility, hotel or motel, laundry (dry cleaning), museum, personal and convenience services, pet grooming, retail (no large scale retail), restaurant, restaurant serving alcoholic beverages, sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption, upholstery shops (no overnight outdoor storage), golf course and driving range as a principle permitted use. 2. Section 18.20.030.B “Lot Coverage” to allow 100% lot coverage for Lots 1-20 in-lieu of the current standard of 60% to be occupied by impervious surfaces and the remaining 40% as landscaping. 3. Section 18.20.040.A.3 “Lot Area” to reduce the required minimum lot area of 43,560 square feet to a minimum lot area ranging from 43,067 square feet to 10,336 square feet for individual lots. 4. Section 18.20.040.B.3 “Lot Width” to reduce the required minimum lot width of 150 feet to a minimum lot width for fourteen of the individual lots from 113.19 feet to 107.19 feet. 5. Section 18.20.050.B “Minimum Yards required for the B-P District” to eliminate the required yard setbacks for the BP district for front yards – 25 feet, rear yards - 20 feet and side yards - 15 feet. 6. Section 18.42.020.C “Neighborhood Center Frontage” to reduce the required 100 percent frontage on public or private streets to 36 percent of linear frontage. 7. Section 18.42.030.C “Double/Through and Reverse Frontage” to allow double/through frontage lots with private streets on multiple sides. 8. Section 18.44.040.C “Block Width” to allow block widths to be less than 200 feet in width. 9. Section 18.44.020.A.2 “Private Streets” to allow private streets to be developed with a reduced drive aisle width from back-of-curb to back-of-curb to back-of-curb in lieu of a local private street with City standard 60 feet of right-of-way, or the standard back-of-curb to back-of-curb width of 31, 33 or 35 feet. 10. Section 18.44.090.B “Drive Access From Improved Public Street, Approved Private Street or Alley Required” to provide the primary lot access and frontage from a 26-foot wide drive aisle in-lieu of providing legal and physical access via twenty-five of frontage on a public or approved private street, public or approved private street and an improved alley, or improved alley and greenway corridor or trail corridor with access. 11. Section 18.46.010.E “No Parking Permitted in Required Front or Side Yards” to encroach entirely into the required yard setbacks for BP for Lots 1-20. City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan (DOP) The site in question is located in the West Main Street entryway overlay district and therefore requires the Design Review Board to evaluate the proposal against the City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan (DOP). As a result, the Planning Staff offers the following recommendations and comments on the proposed layout for consideration by the Design Review Board (DRB): 177 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 4 1. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: For All Properties: Neighborhood Design Guidelines a. See the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) for Entryway Corridors at pages specified. b. Page 11 – Enhance high quality green space when it exits in key locations. Of the three principal access points into the development each access point for each street should position areas of green space in addition to the required yard setback that signify a key access point into the development. This should include the access points from Ferguson Avenue and Resort Drive. The principal pedestrian access from Huffine Lane should also be interpreted as a larger area and positioned to recognize the planned pedestrian pathway along the corridor. c. Page 11 - Organize uses to maximize natural assets of the site. When a stormwater detention facility is to be provided, position it in green space and design it to be an amenity in-lieu of an oversight. The stormwater ponds situated at the north end of the site are limited and do not appear adequate, and are generally isolated along the street frontage of Fallon Street and not integrated into the site as an amenity or asset. d. Page 13 - Provide convenient pedestrian and bikeway connections among abutting properties. The plan as submitted provides multiple internal pedestrian connections to and among abutting properties. The bicycle lane within the private street is no longer proposed with this development proposal and should be reinstated and positioned directly between the sidewalk and public parking spaces. The proposed meandering pathway along Huffine Lane with Lot 5 should be continued as part of this application. The application does not illustrate the perimeter pathway around the development as has been implied by the applicant. The intent and purpose of this perimeter pathway will need to be clearly addressed with the PUD preliminary plan application. e. Page 13 – Provide convenient connections to regional pedestrian and bikeways circulation systems. A clearly defined, enhanced direct pedestrian connection from the midpoint along Huffine Lane to the core of the development should be considered. This connection should be an integral open space element of a greenward pedestrian, boulevard entry into the development. f. Page 13 - Provide a waiting zone at major pedestrian crossings. This may occur as a small plaza that adjoins the sidewalk corner. Small pedestrian plazas should be provided at the two principal private street intersections, and intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive intersections, if not along the West Main Street corridor. g. Page 14 - Street Character. The use of a coordinated set of street furnishings is encouraged. The site should utilize a coordinated set of furnishings for the development. Textured public areas, plazas and scored crosswalks should be included in the design of street furnishings and surfaces. The proposed amenities should be of high quality and have a strong urban character that emphasizes regional traditions. Cut sheets of all furnishings shall be submitted with the formal application as part of the Development Manual. h. Page 14 - Street Character. The use of a coordinated landscape design shall be used along the street edge to establish a single identity for the area and to buffer the view of cars into the parking areas. Use plant materials that are similar to those on adjacent properties. The plans show very little landscaping other than trees along the public frontages of the project and no additional landscaping to buffer the parking on site. The formal application will need to provide a high quality coordinated 178 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 5 plan for the public frontages with significant landscape planting clusters and other strategies to buffer the on-site parking. Architectural screening in combination with other landscaping including low screen architectural walls is recommended for the parking lot screening. Site Design Guidelines a. Page 21 - Incorporate drainage systems as a part of the site amenities and landscape design. The storm system should be designed so that it is incorporated into the site landscaping as naturalized amenities or integrated into urban plazas or other hardscaped features as an amenity. Irregular shaped, landscaped features should design the storm water facilities for the development. b. Page 21 - Parking areas should be designed to minimize stormwater runoff. The applicant should consider Low Impact Development principles in the parking lot areas. Bioswales within the parking areas should be considered. c. Page 22 - Where it is to be used, design a detention pond as a site amenity. Retention/detention facilities should be incorporated into the site design as an amenity as mentioned above. See exhibit on page 22. d. Page 23 - Policy for Building Placement. Buildings should be sited to respect development patterns that are identified in the design objectives for the area, such as the orientation of the structures to the street, alignment of building fronts and setbacks, relationship to neighboring properties, as well as the location of buildings at major intersections. See this entire section for further guidance along with the exhibit on page 68 for the West Main Street Corridor. The plan as submitted does not demonstrate the intent of these guidelines. Consider defining hierarchy of plazas and courtyards in addition to neighborhood center, define corners of buildings at principal street intersections, ensure e. Page 23 - Where two or more buildings will be located in a major site development, arrange them in a cluster to define outdoor spaces. Enhancing the principal street intersections with smaller plazas and courtyards would be appropriate within the context of this neighborhood. f. Page 23 - Where a major intersection occurs, provide a building anchor at the corner. Define the corner with a strong building presence. Enhance the corner with a pedestrian friendly entrance plaza. While large anchor tenants may not be possible with this development, the major corners of the site should encourage a strong building presence that respects the orientation of structures to the street corners and emphasis on the main building entrance. No corners have a pedestrian friendly plaza entrance to the buildings in those areas. g. Page 23 - Organize the public edges of a site to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Double/reverse frontage buildings should be avoided were possible. Buildings with double frontage that includes frontage onto a public way need to provide visual interest by incorporating storefronts, display windows and architectural features to provide interest along the pubic ways and West Main Street corridor h. Page 23 - Locate a building entry near the sidewalk edge with an entry plaza and landscape, when feasible. No building entrances appear along the exterior street edges of this project and no outdoor plazas, eating areas or public spaces are illustrated within the development as part of the interior street network. 179 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 6 i. Page 24 – Provide an outdoor public space on a major site development. As this development must address the need for additional open space above what is required with yard setbacks and parking lot landscape the need for public spaces that include plazas, covered arcades and seating areas should be included in the initial phases of the planned unit development in addition to the neighborhood center. j. Page 24 - Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site. The proposed large plaza area within the development serves as a focal point for the site. Other outdoor spaces and plazas should be provided as part of a hierarchy of public space to connect the other buildings on site. Smaller pockets of plaza spaces would be anticipated throughout the site to connect uses, buildings and areas of outdoor activities. k. Page 27 - Clearly define a key pedestrian entrance into a major site development with distinctive landscape elements. The principal pedestrian entrances to the site along Resort Drive and Fallon Street, as well as Huffine Lane should be further defined with distinctive landscape elements. As suggested in the DOB bold landscape features and artwork should be considered along Huffine Lane. l. Page 28 - Within a development, convey the hierarchy of internal street and driveways in the streetscape design. As with the key pedestrian entrances to the site, the proposal does not convey a hierarchy of internal driveways. The primary drive aisles and circulation routes should have a character and level of landscaping that conveys them as the “principal streets.” The major circulation routes should have a higher degree of landscape features in concert with public spaces and outdoor seating areas, with less of an influence by perpendicular parking. Because the main street for this development is also intended to function as a walkable corridor, parallel parking is preferred over angled or perpendicular parking spaces. Drive aisles which access smaller parking areas and service areas should be clearly subordinate to the primary routes and angled parking in-lieu of perpendicular parking should be considered along the secondary north/south routes. m. Page 29 - Identify a key entry point into a major site development with special landscape design elements. As stated previously, the three primary vehicular entrances into the site are not defined with special landscape design elements. n. Page 29 - Minimize the width of internal roadways when feasible. The site development contains extensive drives with the intent of serving circulation, deliveries, parking, and ingress and egress. However, the major circulation routes must place a stronger emphasis on serving as streets where adequate width is available for circulation and delivery routes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian movement. This includes the need to also provide adequate pedestrian circulation on both sides of the north/south streets in addition to the projects main street. For these reasons parallel and angled parking should be encouraged within the street hierarchy. o. Page 31 - Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. The current design allows for the division of smaller parking lots along the public ways by placing buildings along the public streets of Fallon Street, Resort Drive and Huffine Lane. The site does not provide information for screening parking from the public ways. Where parking fronts onto public ways, screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (highly landscaped berms, clustered intensive planting beds, low decorative walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedge, combinations thereof, etc.). Additional landscape buffers should be included between the parking lots and north/south secondary street network 180 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 7 p. Page 31 - Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. Parking should be internalized and divided into smaller lots to reduce the visual impact within the core of the development. Landscape buffers that separate parking lots should be 15’ minimum width with a sidewalk and 12’ minimum width without a sidewalk (see exhibit on page 23). This should apply to the north/south streets throughout the entire development at a minimum and include the south most parking lots. q. Page 33 – Orient service entrances, waste disposal areas and other similar uses toward service lanes and away from major streets. The application does not identify or discuss how they plan to provide service and loading/unloading areas for the future tenants with exception to the buildings along Huffine Lane. Disposal areas appear inadequate based on the scale of the project and are generally positioned to abut the public ways of Fallon Street and Resort Drive, and are situated at maximum distance from the tenants they will service. Instead these areas should be situated in close proximity to buildings for convenience and properly incorporated into the building design. r. Page 33 – Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses. The use of an alley system to locate service areas for this development is not proposed with this application. The operation and functions of typical community commercial retail uses call for the need to provide appropriate service areas in proximity to buildings for the delivery and pickup of goods and merchandise. This calls for a redesign of the parking areas that allows for the ability to provide such service areas. s. Page 35 - Landscape buffers should be provided. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (highly landscaped berms, clustered intensive planting beds, low decorative walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedge, combinations thereof, etc.). The amount of landscape screening for the parking areas currently depicted between the parking and the public streets is insufficient. Building Design Guidelines a. Page 37 – Building Design Guidelines – Buildings in the commercial entryway corridors should convey a high quality of design, in terms of their materials and details, as well as through a consistent organization of forms and elements. The application offers a general perspective of their urban mixed-use development concept, but does not communicate how they intend to implement a high quality of design or the design disciplines that will be used to address the guidelines discussed on pages 39-48 of the City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. b. Page 39 – Innovative new designs that draw upon regional design traditions are preferred. Buildings in the entryway corridors should convey a high quality of design, in terms of their materials and details, as well as through a consistent organization of forms and elements. Buildings should reflect the design traditions of the region, in terms of building and roof forms, and appear to be in scale with those seen traditionally. The “classicism” architecture proposed by the applicant suggests some of the traditions of the region, yet leave the detail and treatment of scale, massing, pedestrian scale, use of materials, etc., unanswered. A detailed development manual addressing these disciplines will need to be addressed with the formal application. c. Orient the primary entrance of a building to face a street, plaza or pedestrian way. Consider locating a pedestrian plaza at the entrance that incorporates landscaping and 181 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 8 streetscape features for those buildings situated at the principle street intersections of the development’s main street. d. Page 41 – Develop the street level of a building to provide interest to pedestrians. All sides of buildings should include interesting details and materials to avoid presenting a “back side” to neighboring properties, public ways and the West Main Street entryway corridor. Outdoor seating areas, store fronts, plazas, display cases should all take advantage of the southern exposure onto the entryway corridor. e. Page 42 – Policy for Building Mass and Scale. A building should appear to have a “human scale”. In general, this can be accomplished by using familiar forms and elements that can be interpreted in human dimensions. Again the formal application will need to discuss how they intent to employ design criteria that appears to have a human scale. f. Page 42 – Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. As large scale retail uses are not anticipated with this development, both vertical and horizontal articulation should be easily addressed and outlined in a detailed development manual with the formal application. Change in building height and horizontal articulation of the façades and store fronts will need to be discussed in detail and illustrated accordingly. g. Page 42 – Buildings shall employ all of the following design techniques: change in material or color, change in height of a wall plane or building module, change in roof form, and arrangement of windows and other façade articulation. These design techniques will need to be discussed in detail as part of the development manual and design theme for the planned unit development. h. Page 44 - Use building materials that help establish a human scale. It is recommended that with the building designs that the use of brick in standard modules is appropriate, while avoiding the use of large surfaces of panelized products or featureless materials, or large surfaces that lacks articulation. i. Page 46 – Use traditional buildings materials for primary wall surfaces. A minimum of 75% of the surface area of a wall (excluding glass) that is visible from a public way shall be composed of the materials listed on page 46 of the Design Objectives Plan. j. Page 47 – Coordinate design features among sets of buildings in a single development. The Development Manual will need to identify how similar rooflines, materials, window and fenestration arrangements, sign location and other architectural details are used to coordinate the theme for the development. 2. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: West Main: a. See pages 63-68 of the DOP. b. The vision for development of the W. Main Corridor is that it establish a greensward corridor image (50’setback), landscaped open space along the roadway and then, an edge of buildings generally defining the inside edge of the greensward. Public art and plazas also should be promoted to provide visual accents along the corridor. The pubic boulevard pathway along Huffine Lane should be a meandering plan located away from the road age, enhanced by boulevard trees and high quality landscaped features. c. Building shall present facades to the public walk that are visually interesting. They may include display cases, storefronts, public art and other decorative features that provide 182 Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D. – Concept Plan Review 9 visual interest and establish a sense of human scale. Strong architectural forms should be encouraged, creating a gradual transition into downtown. d. The goal is to encourage more buildings to be constructed to the minimum setback. Parking should be primarily located to the interior of the property. Below grade parking underneath buildings should be considered. e. Internal driveway systems should permit circulation between properties without returning to the highway. f. Page 68—See illustration. Based on the proposed relaxations to the Bozeman Municipal Code requested with this PUD concept plan review, and the magnitude of the proposed land uses and site development; and further based on the intent, purpose and spirit of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan to ensure that development in the entryway corridors will result in dynamic, high-quality design; that the above comments provided by staff should be strongly considered as minimum standards with development of the subject property. To achieve this it is recommended that the applicant provide a written narrative with the PUD preliminary plan application that clearly outlines how each of the above DOB guidelines, and any recommendations or comments of the Design Review Board will be achieved. Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials Sent To: Ileana Indreland, Michael W. Delaney 101 E. Main Street Suite D Bozeman, MT 59715 C & H Engineering & Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Jami Morris, 2440 Etta Place, Bozeman, MT 59718 183 Page 1 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Randy Wall Tim McHarg, Planning Director Scott Bechtle David Skelton, Senior Planner Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Page Huyette Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Walter Banziger Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison Visitors Present Jami Morris Tony Renslow Mike Delaney Thomas Bitnar Laura Dornberger Steve Locati ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2011 INFORMAL MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to approve the minutes of March 23, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant of the second project if the order of review could be reversed. Mr. Delaney responded that he did not mind. 2. Santa Fe Red's Sign COA/DEV #Z-11130 (Bristor) 211 East Main Street, Suite 101 * A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation application to allow a projecting sign to exceed the allowable maximum square footage. Mr. Hufstetler and Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Steve Locati and Laura Dornberger joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report on behalf of Allyson Bristor noting the application was to allow a sign to exceed the maximum square footage. He stated Staff had found the request to be appropriate for the site. He stated Staff had noted the scale of the signage would not visually impact the streetscape 184 Page 2 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 in this location as the building’s mass was large. He stated one condition of approval had been identified regarding the neon lighting proposed which would be required to have a dimmer included. Mr. Locati stated the proposal had been represented very well by Staff and he had nothing to add, but would be available to answer questions. Mr. Hufstetler asked how far apart the two neon signs would be. Mr. Locati responded they would be roughly 40 feet apart. Mr. Hufstetler asked if both neon lights would be the same brightness. Mr. Locati responded he was not certain as one existing sign was being refurbished. Mr. Bechtle stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted and he concurred with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Wall stated that, in the interest of full disclosure, he had spoken with the applicant and owner for the proposal and reviewed a past Deviation request that was similar. He stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted with Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted and agreed with Staff conditions of approval. He stated he was glad to see the proposal and his only concern was the proximity of the other sign. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Santa Fe Red's Sign COA/DEV #Z-11130 with Staff conditions of approval. The motion carried 5-0. 1. Spring Creek Village Resort Lot 4 Concept PUD #Z-11109 (Skelton) West of Resort Drive, North of Huffine Lane, south of Fallon Street * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the development of 20 B-P (Business Park District) lots with 2 park/recreation/open space lots in phases. Chairperson Pentecost waived the necessity for Ms. Huyette to observe the meeting and invited her to participate in the comment portion of the review. Jami Morris, Thomas Bitnar, Michael Delaney, and Tony Renslow joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the goal was to provide comment and advice to assist the applicant with their formal application submittal. He stated Staff had met with the applicant to discuss the Design Objective Plan criteria. He stated the site was currently zoned Business Park District and was located within the West Main Street Entryway Corridor. He stated the formal Planned Unit Development application would be reviewed by the DRB where the advisory body would also review the applicant’s Development Manual guidelines against the Design Objective Plan Guidelines for the proposal. He stated relaxations were commonly requested as part of a Planned Unit Development Application. He stated the requested relaxations to the Bozeman Municipal Code were pretty significant but it would be a matter of trade offs for higher quality design of the project. He stated the Design Objectives Plan would set the standards for high-quality of design in this location. However, by proposing a mixed use plan unit development (PUD) that includes relaxations to the regulatory standards, the bar is raised even higher for exceptional site and building design. He stated there was no 185 Page 3 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 requirement for the residential component but it was allowed; the previous Lot 4 review was for the UMU District that contained a residential component requirement. He stated the applicant has taken Staff’s recommendation of bringing the proposed buildings closer to the edge of the site along Huffine Lane and that the DRB Staff reported focused on three of the five review criteria from the Design Objectives Plan (i.e., neighborhood design, site design and West Main street entryway corridor). He stated the applicant had provided limited information about the site and building design, as result the focus was on the West Main Street Entryway Overlay District, neighborhood design and site design. He stated that with regard to establishing a hierarchy of design elements that the general focus should be based on the more intense the use and activity, then the greater the need for public spaces, plazas and areas for social activities and open space. Planner Skelton stated the applicant had provided a model and directed the DRB to a rendering of the proposal he had colored for easier identification of features. He noted the locations of the proposed open space corridor and neighborhood center. He stated the neighborhood center achieved the intent of providing the necessary focal point of a public open space and a social gathering area and Staff felt the neighborhood center and open space corridor along Huffine Lane could be included in the calculations for meeting the open space PUD requirements. He noted the locations of the proposed service areas and a pedestrian access off of Huffine Lane into the core of the development. He stated Staff had suggested a greater emphasis be placed on all of the principal entrances into the development, both pedestrian and vehicular and suggested a bike/pedestrian path should be included from Huffine Lane. He stated the main street of the development (east-west) needed a stronger emphasis with regard to its streetscape, plazas, seating areas, buildings transparency at the street level; that it not only needs to look and feel like a street, but also act as a main street by emphasizing the importance of a pedestrian friendly walkable community. He stated the importance of major streets being differentiated from the secondary streets and suggested the hierarchy of the streetscape would be best served if attention was given more to both pedestrian and bicycle connectivity as bicycle connectivity was as important as pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and should not be ignored. He distributed an exhibit of the bicycle pathways as part of the streetscape long North Higgins Avenue in Missoula and noted how it added a lot of vitality and dynamics to the downtown main street of Missoula. Planner Skelton stated perpendicular parking had been proposed with the project; Staff’s concern was that a sustainable, walkable community should not have parking stalls that dominate the streetscape or compete with the connectivity of the site. He stated Staff had typically found that perpendicular parking was least safe while parallel parking was most safe. If not parallel parking, angled parking should be considered at a minimum along the main street and secondary street network. He stated he thought the project could achieve the necessary amenities sought with the Design Objectives Plan and Planned Unit Development criteria, but it would not be until the formal application submittal that the information would be provided. He expressed the need for extension details and explanation on how the comments of staff and the DRB would be achieved. He stated it may require some redesign of the project; as a result, the recommendations of staff and DRB will need to be seriously considered by the applicant before submitting a formal application. He stated vertical urban density should be an integral part of the consideration of the project and that the entryway corridor has already established two-story structures in the area, both along the corridor and in proximity to the development. He commented that one-story satellite buildings along the corridor were not the desired impression for this entryway; the applicant had discussed 186 Page 4 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 two to three story structures. He stated Staff felt there needed to be more attention paid to the service and loading areas as well as the pedestrian and bikeway connectivity. He stated he thought all of Staff’s recommendations could be achieved on the site with the necessary revisions to the site and noted it was a Planned Unit Development with a higher level of design standards necessary to consider the relaxations to the regulatory standards sought by the applicant. He stated that to assist the applicant, open space did not have to be just green space; plazas, landscape and landscape furniture, surface materials, main street design, embracing the entryway corridor, emphasis on entrance or connectivity points could be considered as amenities that would help to meet the open space requirements. Planner Skelton made reference to his closing comments in the DRB staff report stating that the recommendations of staff and the DRB should set the minimum standards for this development based on the scale and magnitude of the development, as well as the relaxations being requested with this application. Mr. Delaney introduced his team. He stated he had been working on the project for a number of years and had likely gone through 100 iterations that were market driven. He directed the DRB to the model they had prepared to give the Board some idea of the massing of the project. He stated they had attempted to create a campus environment with the current proposal. He stated that a portion of the site would be filled with medical offices and would maintain the campus layout. He stated there would be a lodge, restaurants, and everyone would have a shared parking lot. He stated the attempt to create a campus was to put pedestrians ahead of vehicles and bicycles; he noted the experience would need to compel people to stay on the site. He stated that as the project evolved and grew, it would be a very beautiful environment irrespective of the buildings uses. He stated the formal submittal would contain detailed drawings that would depict the beautiful entries that would be included at the accesses to the site. He stated the idea was to trap people on the site through the use of a moving area of less than 10 miles per hour within the development. He stated the Bicycle Advisory Board had suggested bicycle access to and around the property but they had not seemed concerned with bike lanes within the development along the main east to west street; he noted it seemed unsafe to provide the bike lane through the development and he would provide expert letters to help prove that the proposed private drive was more safe. He stated there would be other features that would encourage slower movement through the development. He stated that if advice came from other people that angled or parallel parking would work better, the current arrangement could be revised. He stated the development would begin in the center with the creation of the park/plaza area. He stated he agreed with Staff that buildings on the corners could be oriented to face main accesses. He stated the interconnectivity would create an environment that would be easily walkable and a “village like” environment. He stated Norton Ranch would have residences to the west of the site to help provide interconnectivity. He stated the center of the development would be the tallest, most beautiful buildings with those that were smaller would be located toward the edges of the site. He stated emphasis of the access points would be investigated and taken to heart and other amenities would be included as suggested by Staff. Mr. Bitnar added that it was important for them to follow the comment and advice of Staff as well as the advisory bodies. He stated everything would include pedestrian connections and noted the view of the site from Huffine Lane would be very important. He stated it was an amazing responsibility and he was delighted to be a part of the development. He asked the DRB to be positive on the project and a part of the design team. 187 Page 5 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 Mr. Hufstetler asked Mr. Delaney for clarification of whether the proposal had been designed to turn its back on everything around it. Mr. Delaney responded the best way to make it appear that the development opened its arms to the neighborhood was to create a strip development; he added in development you have to be something to somebody, failing that you are nothing to nobody. He stated they were attempting to create a central heart to the development to provide the feeling of safety for patrons of the development. He stated the development had been designed around the heart of the community to create an oasis; he added all buildings would have two sides and be beautiful on both sides. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were possibilities to create visual interest along those corridors to draw people to the site and create more visual interest. Mr. Delaney responded a beautifully designed hotel would draw people to the site; the externalization of the beauty of the development was their goal. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the vehicular and pedestrian traffic might be a hindrance when people were backing out of parking spaces. Mr. Delaney responded the goal was to maintain the east, west, north, and south lines of vision so that people could identify where they were. He stated the parking oriented in any other way would be confusing to pedestrians; they would be improving the north-south corridors to make them more street like and a bike lane could be incorporated in that location. Mr. Hufstetler stated that if he were leaving the site on a bicycle, he would be inclined to cut across a parking lot and violate the rigidity of the design; he saw the entry as perhaps aesthetically pleasing but a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. He suggested less symmetry could be used to mediate the danger at the access. Mr. Delaney responded the landscape median would be designed to prevent people from cutting across the site and his insurance company had suggested a fence along Huffine Lane in an effort to prevent people from going off site in that location where conditions were not adequately safe for pedestrians or bicyclists. Mr. Hufstetler asked if any evaluation of how the outdoor spaces would be impacted by the winter season; some areas might be in shade or shadow much of the time. Mr. Delaney responded they had investigated the shading on the site but it would not affect the plaza area; he noted it would affect some of the parked cars, but everything had been designed for the maximum sunlight as of December 21st. Mr. Hufstetler asked if one location would be a social area or part of the medical campus. Mr. Delaney responded it had been first and foremost created for the medical campus aspect of the site so that good or bad news could be given in a peaceful environment; he added there would be no barriers and all the spaces would be open to people. Mr. Bechtle asked Mr. Delaney if the park area between office buildings had solar studies completed and if it would be a comfortable space. Mr. Delaney responded that location had been studied and a big difference would be made using transparency in the construction of the buildings; their goal was to eventually interconnect the structures. Mr. Bechtle clarified where the medical office uses would be located on the site. Mr. Delaney noted that location. Mr. Bechtle asked if Staff felt the proposed uses were going too far away from the uses allowed in the B-P zoning district. Planner Skelton responded Staff was not too concerned with proposed uses with exception to food processing, personal and convenience services, and convenience uses and would later define them as conditional uses if they are to be permitted in the PUD. Mr. Bechtle clarified that Staff had discussed allowing the uses not generally allowable in the B-P zoning district as Conditional Uses. Planner Skelton responded that Mr. Bechtle was correct. Mr. Bechtle asked how Staff felt about the proposed one story structures along Huffine Lane. Planner Skelton responded Staff had discussed the importance of the street level interest, store fronts and entrances off of Huffine Lane and how the project should embrace the entryway corridor, not turn its back on the corridor, and emphasized the importance of this project being a 188 Page 6 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 gateway into the community; he stated it would be a case by case basis, but Staff was not really excited about one story satellite buildings and would like to see more height and vertical density along Huffine Lane. Mr. Bechtle asked the applicant to discuss the reasoning for some of the proposed heights. Mr. Bitnar responded that it was not about a one or two story structure but was a question of height. He stated there must be a sense of orientation with clear directions of travel to understand your location. He stated that sometimes the height lies and it was very tricky to include the complexity of hierarchy on the site as well as solar implications. Planner Skelton added the need for a couple of other integral elements other than just height such as addressing double frontage lots, building transparency at the street level, fenestration treatment, and public spaces with a high level of quality in building design. Mr. Bechtle asked if there would be a height requirement. Planner Skelton responded there would be height limitations based on the zoning designation but he would prefer not to not rely upon the zoning regulations as this a planned unit development requesting relaxations to the ordinance. Mr. Bechtle asked for clarification of the fence proposed along Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney responded it had to be a visual barrier that would be transparent and had been included purely for safety considerations. Mr. Bechtle asked where Mr. Delaney was considering the outdoor dining areas. Mr. Delaney responded those establishments along Huffine Lane would have the opportunity to have outdoor seating areas but those locations had not yet been determined. Mr. Wall asked Planner Skelton for clarification of the Class I and II Entryway Corridor Overlay Districts. Planner Skelton responded the differences were basically dimensional, Class I being 50 feet and Class II being 25 feet with the idea being that the buildings would be placed closer to the street edge as you traveled toward the downtown area. Mr. Wall asked if there had been discussion of the extension of the main street feature to Cottonwood Road. Planner Skelton responded that Staff could only require the applicant to provide extension of streets to the edge of their site; however, the potential to extend the street would still be available with the adjoining landowner. Mr. Wall suggested Cottonwood Street could be one of the main entrances to the site. Mr. Delaney responded they had considered the Cottonwood Road access, but the two adjacent properties had a shared access and were not amenable to sharing that connection. Mr. Wall suggested he would like to see the connection made and that the applicant go the extra mile to see that it happened. He asked if there were any projects along Huffine Lane that had a fence. Planner Skelton responded there were none at this time, but as lands annex to the west this may be a point of discussion. Mr. Wall stated fences made a statement of inclusiveness that he was not supportive of though he liked the idea of a boulevard that was defined by the structures. Mr. Banziger asked for clarification that the applicant had not spent a lot of time of building and signage design. Planner Skelton responded a general laundry list had been provided the applicant as part of Development Manual guidelines to be included with the formal application and it had included building and sign design; he added Staff had requested and received additional information about the site, but very little about building design. Mr. Banziger asked the applicant what sustainability features had been investigated for the site. Mr. Bitnar responded that the sustainability and LEED construction would be followed, but the problem was that it would be business oriented. Even if Platinum LEED certification were attempted, it would be subject to the current market conditions; sustainability would be followed as closely as possible. Mr. Delaney added they had investigated thermal groundwater which was not fiscally feasible, but day lighting, more green spaces, windows that would open, etc. would be 189 Page 7 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 incorporated and they were investigating fuel cell technology in the hopes that the first building could incorporate it into the design. Mr. Banziger asked if there was a possibility of utilizing water running off the buildings. Mr. Delaney responded it was a possibility, but the high ground water in the location might prevent their use. Mr. Bitnar added a sustainable site was very important and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity would be foremost. Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification if the big scheme of the development would be a medical campus. Mr. Delaney responded the primary uses would be a medical campus with ancillary uses to serve the medical campus with support services located on the south side of the site. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant foresaw the site closing down and becoming much quieter at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Delaney responded the building fronting Huffine would remain open and they anticipate that overflow parking from the restaurant, bar, or plaza would use the medical campus parking lots with those establishments being used 7 days a week. Chairperson Pentecost asked how the parking was calculated for the site. Planner Skelton responded types of uses would determine the parking requirements with the potential for reductions based on shared use parking and Staff would evaluate the site against a mix of commercial and office retail uses. Chairperson Pentecost asked what the energy would be that pulled people to the development after 5:00 p.m. instead of stopping at the previous site (Spring Creek Village Subdivision Lot 5). Mr. Delaney responded that the intention was to tie the sites together so that they would rely upon each other; they were trying to change the UMU zone on Lot 5 so that some people could build a one story structure instead of being required to construct a two-story building. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was happy that Planner Skelton had provided the information on bicycle ways constructed along North Higgins Ave. in Missoula; he had been part of a charrette to determine possible treatments for the main street through town. He stated large scale planned developments had been suggested to draw people to downtown Missoula; those proposals never came to pass and the streetscape had become vibrating and inviting due to organic evolution over a period of time. He suggested it was easier to evolve the existing than to create something from scratch. He stated he was concerned with developments that had rigid plans; his most prominent concern was the sense of isolation created by the development though he understood the motivation. He stated the proposed visual barriers did not seem inviting and the parking situation seemed potentially unsafe. He stated he thought the core area in the center had the potential to be an extraordinary space and suggested it would help if there was an organic extension to the rest of the community. He stated Huffine Lane was arguably one of Bozeman’s most important corridors and it had become less and less appealing visually. He suggested continuity with properties to the east and the south would be critical and he thought the rigidity of the plan would be less inviting. He stated he shared the concerns that Staff had indicated in the Staff Report with regard to the double frontage lots and utility areas that would be highly visible. He stated he liked the notion of combining the two broad usage groups on the site and he thought it had the possibility of working well. He suggested providing more prominent visual landmarks to give the property a stronger sense of place along the perimeters. Mr. Bechtle stated he did not share the same viewpoint with regard to the development turning its back on the rest of Bozeman. He stated the project to the east seemed like a wall around the development. He stated he believed that the spaces between the buildings should be designed for pedestrians and bikers; he added the Design Guidelines would help define the building designs. He stated it made sense that the medical campus did not necessarily have access to the plaza as having the medical offices looking into the gardens would suffice. He stated it made sense to 190 Page 8 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 place the parking on the south side of the site. He stated the services would be provided between the buildings while allowing natural light to penetrate deeper into the building. He suggested a visual edge of two story structures should be continued down Huffine Lane to remain in keeping with the character of the overlay district. He stated he was not supportive of the proposed fence and reiterated that clear and concise Design Guidelines would be critical for the site. Mr. Wall acknowledged the applicant’s on all the work they had put forth and he thought the proposal was a good start. He stated his expectation was that there would be some changes to the proposal when it was formally submitted. He stated the importance of the Entryway Corridor had been emphasized repeatedly. He stated the PUD was a lot more work but a lot more flexible but there were fifteen aspects to the site design that did not meet the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan. He stated that perpendicular parking did not emulate a main street design or feel and suggested de-emphasizing the parking while including more emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian circulation and amenities. He stated he did not think it would be possible to have four fronts to the buildings as service areas were functionally necessary; it would have a big affect on the site plan. He stated he was not supportive of the fence along Huffine Lane. He stated the applicant had made a good start and he hoped that Staff and DRC comments would be incorporated in the formal application submittal. Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated the applicant bringing the project to the DRB. He stated the comments were not meant in a negative light and suggested members were just trying to give advice. He stated he had heard a lot of good campus concepts, but had not seen many of the features instituted in the proposal. He stated the building design and campus design needed to be integrated; the inner hub seemed very well designed, but the ring of parking separated the hub from the remainder of the site. He suggested inspired landscaping, primary and secondary buildings, view portals in and out of the campus, and circulation. He stated the borders and edges should complement the properties next to it while still maintaining an identity; the site should not seem isolated. He stated he was not supportive of the proposed fence and suggested using landscaping features to transition the spaces. He suggested the Design Guidelines should indicate the importance of the buildings and suggested he was not supportive of four fronts to a building as services were necessary. He encouraged the applicant to investigate the parking isolating the core of the development and integration of all forms of transportation on the site. He stated the Design Guidelines would be critical for the site and suggested core principles be included as well. He stated he thought the applicants had a great start. Ms. Huyette stated that most of her comments had been addressed by previous DRB members. She stated the strict symmetry of the layout showed that it will continue through which led to symmetry on the site, however, if the street was not carried through that edge should be redesigned. She suggested there were opportunities to visually connect and draw in the community and give more of a perception of open space; the current layout did not encourage views in. She stated public transit should be considered as well so it would be easier for them to navigate the site while going to their facilities. She stated she was supportive of a safety barrier along Huffine Lane and added a fence could be architecturally designed to complement the parcel. Chairperson Pentecost reinforced Mr. Wall’s comment that perpendicular parking is inappropriate for the site and does not feel like a main street. He suggested Board comments might change once the more detailed formal submittal was under review. He stated he agreed 191 Page 9 of 9 Design Review Board Minutes – June 22, 2011 with Mr. Bechtle that the areas between buildings would be critical and might dictate the design of the buildings to some extent and suggested the development of those areas between buildings should be addressed in the Design Guidelines document. He stated the project was competing with Main Street and suggested that there would need to be a feature to draw people to the site. He stated he thought the applicant was headed down a strong path. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public comment forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Lot 4, Spring Creek Village PUD Concept Plan & Subdivision Pre-App Spring Creek Village LLCSpring Creek Village LLC delaneynco@earthlink.netdelaneynco@earthlink.net BitnarBitnar ArchitectsArchitects www.bitnararchitects.comwww.bitnararchitects.com C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. wwww.chengineers.comww.chengineers.com Jami MorrisJami Morris planningbozeman@yahoo.complanningbozeman@yahoo.com 201 Table of Contents City Planning Applications & Checklists……….............1 Project Description……………………………………….6 Contact Information………………………………….6 Existing Site Conditions………………………………7 Vicinity Map…………………………………………..8 Development Plan………………………………………..9 Development Proposal……………………………....9 Land Use Table……………………………………….11 Requested Relaxations……………………………….12 Sheet 1.0 Site Plan…………………………………….14 Exhibits - Subdivision Pre-app (24”x36” copy) 202 Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1. Name of Project/Development: 2. Property Owner Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 3. Applicant Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 4. Representative Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 5. Legal Description: 6. Street Address: 7. Project Description: 8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s): 10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: 11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet: Lot 4, Spring Creek Village Resort SpringCreek Village, LLC delaneynco@earthlink.net 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman, MT 59715 (406)586-3132 (406)586-8692 Delaney & Co., Inc delaneynco@earthlink.net 101 East Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman, MT 59715 (406)586-3132 (406)586-8692 C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. info@chengineers.com 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406)587-1115 (406)587-9768 Lot 4, Minor Subdiv. No. 295, The Spring Creek Village Resort, Sec. 10, T.2S, R5E, P.M.M. West of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane and south of Fallon Street Subdivision of 1 existing lot into 20 lots and two open space parcels. To be developed as a PUD. B-P Vacant Community Commercial Mixed Use 19.9621 869,548 19.9621 869,548 1203 Page 2 (Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03; Amended 9/17/04, 5/1/06; 9/18/07) 13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14 13a. Which urban renewal district? Downtown Northeast (NURD) North 7th Avenue 14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? Yes, answer question 14a No, go to question 15 14a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor 15. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes, list UDO section(s): No 16. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½- by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 18.64.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant’s Signature: Date: Applicant’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2204 Page 3 (PUD Checklist – Prepared 12/2/03; revised 9/21/04) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST The appropriate checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted: PUD Concept Plan Information Yes No N/A 1.Data regarding site conditions, land characteristics, available community facilities and utilities and other related general information about adjacent land uses and the uses of land within one-half mile of the subject parcel of land 2.Conceptual (sketch) drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major streets and other significant features on the site and within one-half mile of the site 3.A computation table showing the site’s proposed land use allocations by location and as a percent of total site area B. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted: PUD Preliminary Plan Information Yes No N/A 1.The following information shall be presented in an 8½- by 11-inch vertically bound document. The document shall be bound so that it will open and lie flat for reviewing and organized in the following order: a. Application forms b.A list of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers and directors of the corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the planned unit development c.Statement of applicable City land use policies and objectives achieved by the proposed plan and how it furthers the implementation of the Bozeman growth policy d. Statement of the proposed ownership of open space areas e.Statement of the applicant’s intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the planned unit development f.Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial and industrial uses g.Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant h.Where deviations from the requirements of this title are proposed, the applicant shall submit evidence of successful completion of the applicable community design objectives and criteria of Section 18.36.090 (PUD Design Objectives and Criteria), BMC. The applicant shall submit written explanation for each of the applicable objectives or criteria as to how the plan does or does not address the objective or criterion. The Planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any element of the proposal that varies from the criterion shall be described i.Detailed description of how conflicts between land uses of different character are being avoided or mitigated j.Statement of design methods to reduce energy consumption, (e.g., home/business utilities, transportation fuel, waste recycling) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3205 Page 4 Preapplication Requirements, continued Yes No N/A 8.Location of fire hydrants, electric lines, telephone lines, sewage and water treatment, and storage facilities 9. Subdivision block, tract, and lot boundary lines, with numbers, dimensions, and areas for each block, tract and lot 10. Street location, right-of-way width, and name 11. Easement location, width and purpose 12. Sites to be dedicated or reserved as park, common open space, or other public areas; with boundaries, dimensions and areas 13. Sites for commercial centers, churches, schools, industrial areas, condominiums, manufactured housing community, and uses other than single family residences 14. Describe how the subdivision will satisfy the requirements of Section 17.02, BMC, Affordable Housing 15. An overall development plan indicating future development of the remainder of the tract, if the tract is to be developed in phases 16. A title block indicating the proposed name, quarter-section, section, township, range, principal meridian, and county of subdivision 17. Scale, north arrow, name and addresses of owners and developers, and date of preparation 18. A list of variance requests which will be submitted with the application for preliminary plat 19. List of waivers requested from the requirements of Section 18.78.060 (Additional Subdivision Preliminary Plat Supplements), BMC, shall be submitted with the preapplication. The City of Bozeman shall notify the developer in writing of any waivers granted from Section 18.78.060, BMC, after the preapplication meeting or plan review E. Section 76-3-504(1)(q)(iv) of the Montana Code Annotated requires that a preapplication meeting take place no more than 30 days from the date that the agent or agency receives a written request for a preapplication meeting by the subdivider. The City of Bozeman strongly encourages Planning Board and City Commission review of preapplications for major subdivisions. Planning Board and City Commission review of preapplications provides invaluable comments and recommendations to aid in the preparation of preliminary plat applications. However, Planning Board and City Commission review makes it difficult to comply with the 30-day review deadline specified in state law. By marking the checkbox below, the developer agrees to a voluntary extension of the 30-day review deadline for this preapplication. If the checkbox is not marked, the preapplication WILL NOT be reviewed by the Planning Board or City Commission. By marking this checkbox I agree to a voluntary extension of the 30-day review deadline for this preapplication. Applicant’s Signature: Date: Applicant’s Signature: Date: ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 4206 Page 3 (Subdivision Preapplication Checklist – Prepared 11/26/03; revised 9/20/04; revised 5/10/05; revised 7/24/07) SUBDIVISION PREAPPLICATION CHECKLIST These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. Subdivision Type. First Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record First Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record with a Variance Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record Major Subdivision B. Total Number of Lots. C. Proposed Uses. Indicate the number of lots (or spaces subdivisions for rent or lease, or units for condominiums) for each of the following uses: Residential, single household Park/Recreation/Open Space Residential, multi household Manufactured Home Space Planned Unit Development Recreational Vehicle Space Condominium Unit Commercial Townhouse Industrial Other: D. Preapplication Requirements. The preapplication plan may be a freehand sketch, legibly drawn, showing approximate boundaries, dimensions, areas and distances. The plan may be drawn directly on a print of a topographic survey required for the preliminary plat. Please refer to Section 18.78.030, BMC for the specific requirements for each item. Preapplication Requirements Yes No N/A 1. The name of adjoining subdivisions and numbers of adjoining certificates of survey, along with adjacent lot and tract lines 2. Location, name, width and owner of existing or proposed streets, roads and easements within the proposed subdivision; existing streets, roads and easements within adjacent subdivisions and tracts; and the name of street or road that provides access from the nearest public street or road to the proposed subdivision 3. Location of all existing structures, including buildings, railroads, power lines, towers, and improvements inside and within 100 feet of the proposed subdivision 4. Zoning classification within the proposed subdivision and adjacent to it. The zoning proposed for the subdivision, if a change is contemplated 5. A current U.S. Geological Survey Topographic map at the largest scale available with the subdivision clearly outlined 6. Embankments, water courses, drainage channels, areas of seasonal water ponding, areas within the designated floodway, marsh areas, wetlands, rock outcrops, wooded areas, noxious weeds and areas of active faults. Include copies of any permits listed in Section 18.78.020 (Streambed, Streambank and/Wetlands Permits), BMC that have been obtained for the project 7. Location, size, and depth of sanitary and storm sewers, water mains and gas lines ✔ 22 20 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 5207 Project Description Contact Information Spring Creek Village LLC Tony Renslow Project Manager 101 E. Main St., Ste. D Bozeman, MT 59715 406.586.3132 (office) 406.586.8692 (fax) 406.539.7374 (cell) delaneynco@earthlink.net Bitnar Architects 502 S. Grand Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.1983 (office) 406.587.2125 (fax) bitnar@imt.net C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.1115 (office) 406.587.9768 (fax) mcotterman@chengineers.com Jami Morris 2440 Etta Place Bozeman, MT 59718 406.570.6209 planningbozeman@yahoo.com 6208 Existing Site Conditions Lot 4, Spring Creek Village PUD consists of 20 acres zoned Business Park with a Community Commercial Mixed Use growth policy land use designation and located within the West Main Street (Class I) Entryway Corridor. The flat vacant land within Spring Creek Village has been historically used for hay and is predominantly grassland. The property is located in the northwest portion of town on the northwest corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The project site is bound by Huffine Lane, Resort Drive and Fallon Street. The adjacent roadways have been improved with the original platting of Spring Creek Village Minor Subdivision. Huffine Lane is improved to a 5 lane arterial highway and the remaining streets are designed and constructed as 2 lane local streets. Although curb and gutter have already been installed along Fallon Street and Resort Drive the sidewalks will be installed with the subdivision infrastructure. Looking north at the property from Huffine Lane. Utilities and community facilities such as gas, electric, telephone, water and sewer were installed with the original platting of the Spring Creek Village Minor Subdivision. The utilities will be accessed from their existing locations within the utility easements surrounding the property. Water and sewer will be provided to the subdivision from the 8” water mains in Resort Drive and Fallon Street; 8” sewer main in Fallon Street; and 10” sewer main in Resort Drive. The area within the ½ mile radius of the property is an eclectic mix of residential and commercial uses. Spring Creek Village was originally subdivided as a minor subdivision over 10 years ago. Since then the adjacent property within the city limits has developed into a small neighborhood commercial area with a bank, auto dealership and vet clinic to the west and Allied Waste to the south (across Huffine Lane). The property to the east zoned Urban Mixed Use and owned by Spring Creek Village Resort, LLC was recently reviewed as a concept plan for a Planned Unit Development. The adjacent land to the north remains vacant but further north and within a ½ mile radius of the property is a residential condominium development. First Security Bank located west of the property. Cottonwood Veterinary Hospital located west of the property. 7209 8210 Development Plan Development Proposal Lot 4, Spring Creek Village PUD is a 20 lot subdivision providing a flexible environment for commercial and office development. The proposed subdivision will provide a mix of uses including a hotel, restaurants, offices and a variety of retail uses. The property is zoned B-P within a Community Commercial growth policy designation. The intent of the PUD is to accommodate a mix of office and commercial uses with a lot layout and building setbacks that better utilize the land. The PUD application has been submitted as a master plan only. No building plans have been provided. Plans for a Phase 1 may be submitted with the Preliminary PUD. As depicted in the master plan there is potential for 28 building pads with approximately 250,000 gross square feet of building area. A development manual with detailed development guidelines will be drafted for review with the preliminary plan. The development manual will be drafted to include guidelines to implement the Design Objectives Plan for the Class I Entryway Corridor. As part of the PUD a relaxation will be requested to add several uses to the principally permitted uses within the development. Retail uses and restaurants are proposed on the south half of the subdivision and office and medical office uses are planned for the north half of the subdivision. Parking - All of the lots will share parking and access. A shared parking/access easement will be depicted on the preliminary plat. The current plan does not depict ADA parking spaces. Based on the number of parking stalls required we would need a minimum of 20 disable accessible parking spaces. Given the layout of the subdivision we propose 40 ADA spaces instead. About 64 standard stalls will be eliminated from the current plan of 792 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed ADA parking for standard and van accessible parking. According to our estimated parking calculations the subdivision would require a minimum of 987 standard parking spaces and we propose 728 standard parking spaces. This will result in a 26% parking reduction to the minimum parking requirements through joint use parking. Evidence to support this request (per Section 18.46.050) will be submitted with the preliminary plan. Trip generation for a mixed use project such as this will demonstrate that less parking is necessary due to co-use of parking spaces. For example, clientele staying at the hotel will cross utilize the parking necessary for restaurant and retail use within the subdivision. This will not only reduce fuel emissions of patrons within the subdivision but it will also decrease the necessary hardscape for the planned unit development. 9211 Initial Parking Estimates: Land Use Parking Calculations Spaces Required Hotel 100 rooms x 1.1 spaces + employees 120 Restaurant/Bar 15,000 sf serving area @ 1 per 50 sf 300 Retail 50,000 sf x 85% @ 1 per 300 sf 142 Office 125,000 sf x 85% @ 1 per 250 sf 425 Minimum standard spaces required 987 Accessible spaces required @ 2% minimum 20 Total required 1007 Parking spaces depicted 792 Standard parking spaces proposed 728 Accessible spaces proposed 40 Total proposed 768 Timing for Improvements – Infrastructure improvements are planned for fall 2011 upon preliminary plat approval. Building construction will likely commence shortly after final site plan/COA approval is granted. Concurrent construction will likely be requested with the preliminary plan to allow the first tenants to start construction by spring 2012. Open Space – The subdivision will meet the 20 point PUD requirement with non-public open space (the calculation is provided below). Based on the size of the property 4 acres of open space is required. The plan depicts 4.9 acres which includes the perimeter setbacks and the neighborhood center. Plans for the neighborhood center consist of a 1.2 acre landscaped park area with benches. Additional improvements include a water feature that will stretch north to south from Lot 16 to Lot 20. The water feature will be bordered by sidewalks with footbridges extending from the east to the west side of the open space. The remaining 3.7 acres of open space consists of the following setbacks around the perimeter of the subdivision: 50’ adjacent to Huffine Lane; 36’ adjacent to Resort Drive; 65’-70’ adjacent to Fallon Street and 30’-39’ along the west property line. PUD Points: 4.89 acres non-public open space /19.96 gross acres = 24% or 24 points 10212 Land Uses TABLE OF USES AUTHORIZED USES Arts and entertainment center P Automobile parking lot or garage P/A Banks and other financial institutions P Community center P Convenience uses P Day Care Center P Essential Services (Type I and II) P Food processing facility P Health and Exercise Establishment P Hospital P Hotel or motel P Laboratories, research and diagnostic P Laundry, dry cleaning P Manufacturing, light (completely encloses within a building) P Medical Clinic P Museum P Offices P Personal and convenience services P Personnel service facilities providing services, food and convenience goods A Pet grooming P Public buildings P Retail (no large scale retail) P Restaurant P Restaurant serving alcoholic beverages C Sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption C Technology research establishments P Upholstery shops (no overnight outdoor storage) P Veterinary clinics P The uses highlighted are the additional uses, requested through the PUD, to the already permitted uses in the B-P district. 11213 Requested Relaxations The following relaxations have been identified based on conceptual drawings. Some of the relaxations may be eliminated or additional relaxations may be identified with the preliminary plan. 18.20.020 Authorized Uses- Table 20-1 To allow the following additional uses: arts and entertainment center, convenience uses, food processing facility, hotel or motel, laundry (dry cleaning), museum, personal and convenience services, pet grooming, retail (no large scale retail), restaurant, restaurant serving alcoholic beverages, sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption, upholstery shops (no overnight outdoor storage). 18.20.030.B Lot Coverage- Not more than 60% of the total lot area shall be occupied by impervious surfaces. The remaining 40% shall be landscaped. Lots 1-20. 18.20.040.A.3 Lot Area- Minimum lot area of 43,560 square feet. Lot 2 – 43,067 sf; Lot 3 – 43,065 sf; Lot 5 – 36,333 sf; Lot 6 – 36,333 sf; Lot 9 – 35,013 sf; Lot 10 – 10,914 sf; Lot 11 – 10,914 sf; Lot 12 – 35,013 sf; Lot 13 – 10,336 sf; Lot 14 – 10, 336 sf; Lot 15 – 40,284 sf; Lot 17 – 40,284; Lot 18 – 10,336 sf; and Lot 19 – 10,336 sf. 18.20.040.B.3 Lot Width- Minimum lot width of 150 feet. Lot 10 – 113.19’; Lot 11 – 113.19’; Lot 13 – 107.19’; Lot 14 – 107.19’; Lot 18 – 107.19’; and Lot 19 – 107.19’. 18.20.050.B Minimum yards required for the B-P district- Front yard 25 feet, rear yard 20 feet and side yard 15 feet. Lots 1-20. 18.42.020.C Neighborhood Center Frontage- The neighborhood center shall have frontage along 100% of its perimeter on public or private streets. The neighborhood center is adjacent to a private street and private parking on 36% of the linear feet of frontage. 18.42.030.C Double/Through and Reverse Frontage- Double/through frontage lots shall be avoided except where essential. Lots are designed with private street adjacency on multiple sides. 12214 18.44.0 ight of way requirement is 31, 33 or 35 feet from back-of- 20.A Private Streets- A local private street r curb to back-of-curb. The private streets are proposed as standard drive aisle width. .44.090.B Drive Access from Improved Public Street, Approved Private Street, Alley lot is required to have twenty five feet of frontage as well as, legal and 18 Required- Each physical access from a public street, approved private street or greenway corridor. Primary lot access and frontage will be provided from 26 foot wide drive aisles. 18.46.010.E No parking permitted in required front or side yards- ront or side yard. Required parking spaces shall not be located in any required f Lots 1-20 13215 213,3214.9015.064.90243,878 sffootprint3,878 sffootprint3,878 sffootprint3,878 sffootprint12,957 sffootprint2,482 sffootprint2,482 sffootprint2,482 sffootprint2,482 sffootprint5,775 sffootprint5,775 sffootprint5,775 sffootprint5,775 sffootprint5,775 sffootprint5,775 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint16,488 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint4,517 sffootprint7,252 sffootprint7,252 sffootprint7,252 sffootprint7,252 sffootprint51,194 sf162,197sf81,63273,047792FOOTPRINTFOOTPRINT14216 217 Lot Coverage Calculations Lot # Total Lot Area(sq ft) Landscaping (sq ft) Hardscape (sq ft) % Coverage 1 43,913 7,098 36,815 84% 2 43,067 6,768 36,299 84% 3 43,065 6,770 36,295 84% 4 43,915 7,098 36,817 84% 5 36,333 1,322 35,011 96% 6 36,333 1,322 35,011 96% 7 44,613 1,729 42,884 96% 8 44,613 1,729 42,884 96% 9 35,013 3,497 31,516 90% 10 10,914 1,277 9,637 88% 11 10,914 1,277 9,637 88% 12 35,013 3,497 31,516 90% 13 10,336 866 9,470 92% 14 10,336 866 9,470 92% 15 40,284 3,164 37,120 92% 16 46,972 9,000 37,972 81% 17 40,284 3,001 37,283 93% 18 10,336 866 9,470 92% 19 10,336 866 9,470 92% 20 60,971 8,424 52,547 86% Total 657,561 70,437 587,124 89% 218 Lot Setbacks Lot # building parking building parking building parking front side 10 25 0 020 0 X 20 25 0 020 0 X 30 25 0 020 0 X 40 0 15 020 0 X X 50 0 15 020 0 X X 625 0 0 0 20 0 X X 725 0 0 0 20 0 X X 80 0 15 020 0 X X 9 0 25 15 0 20 0 X 10 25 0 5 15 020X 11 25 0 5 15 020X 12 25 0 15 0 020XX 13 25 0 0-5 15 020X 14 25 0 0-5 15 020X 15 0 0 15 0 20 0 X X 16 25 0 15 0 10 20 X X 17 0 25 0 0 20 0 X X 18 25 0 0-5 15 020X 19 25 0 0-5 15 020X 20 25 0 15 15 20 0 X X Front Yard (ft) Side Yard (ft) Rear Yard (ft) Parking in Yards 219 F F F F F F F F F F FF F F F F F F F F F FFF S SS S S S SSSSS SSS S S S S S S S SS S SS S S SS SSSS R R R R R R RR R R S R R R RRR RRRR S 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Traffic Impact Study Spring Creek Village – Lot 4 Commercial Development Bozeman, Montana Prepared For: Delaney & Company 101 East Main Suite D Bozeman, MT 59715 June, 2011 130 South Howie Street Helena, Montana 59601 406-459-1443 228 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana i Table of Contents A. Executive Summary ......................................................................................1 B. Project Description ........................................................................................1 C. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................1 Adjacent Roadways ..............................................................................1 Traffic Counts ........................................................................................3 Additional Developments.......................................................................3 Level of Service .....................................................................................4 D. Proposed Development ..............................................................................4 E. Trip Generation and Assignment ................................................................6 F. Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................8 G. Traffic Impacts Outside of the Development ...............................................8 H. Impact Summary & Recommendations ......................................................9 List of Figures Figure 1 – Proposed Development Site ...................................................................2 Figure 2 – Proposed Development ..........................................................................5 Figure 3 – Trip Distribution ......................................................................................8 List of Tables Table 1 – Historic Daily Traffic Data ........................................................................3 Table 2 – Existing Level of Service Summary .........................................................4 Table 3 – Trip Generation Rates .............................................................................7 Table 4 – Level of Service Summary With Development ........................................9 229 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 1 June 2011 Traffic Impact Study LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As proposed, the full development of LOT 4 of the Spring Creek Village Subdivision will not significantly impact the operations of any near-by intersections. All intersections will continue to function at acceptable levels of service and no intersection improvements will be necessary. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This document studies the possible effect on the surrounding road system from the development of LOT 4 a proposed 20-acre commercial development along the western edge of Bozeman, Montana. The site is located just north of Huffine Lane (U.S. Hwy 191) between Cottonwood Road and Ferguson Avenue. The developers propose to develop the property into a commercial and retail center. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed development property currently consists of a 20-acre parcel of undeveloped land located north of Huffine Lane between Cottonwood Road and Ferguson Road. Huffine Lane (US 191) dominates the transportation system surrounding this site, which is the primary connection between Bozeman and Four Corners. Other streets surrounding the proposed development are Ferguson Avenue, Cottonwood Road, Fallon Street, Resort Drive, and Valley Commons Drive. Most of these streets are included on the Bozeman “Major Street Network”. Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road are principal arterials, Ferguson Avenue is a designated collector route, and Fallon Street and Resort Drive are local streets. See Figure 1 for a location map of the proposed development. Adjacent Roadways Huffine Lane (SR 191) is a five-lane, two-way, east-west principal arterial and State highway. All cross streets or private driveways are signalized or Stop controlled between Four Corners and the City of Bozeman. The speed limit on Huffine Lane adjacent to the proposed development site is 55 mph. The SR 191 alignment swings northeast after intersecting College Street and becomes Main Street. Traffic data collected by MDT in 2009 indicates that the roadway carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 20,000 vehicles per day. 230 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 2 June 2011 Ferguson Avenue i s a t w o -lane, two-way collector that runs north from Huffine Lane. The road provides access to many of the newly constructed residential development in this section of Bozeman. The intersection of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane is currently signalized. Figure 1- Proposed Development Site Cottonwood Road i s a t w o -lane, north/south principal arterial street. North of Huffine Lane the road currently has only a small amount of development adjacent to the roadway which includes the JC Billion car dealership. South of Huffine Lane, Cottonwood Road serves a variety of rural residential areas and farm and ranch lands and carried 2,900 VPD in 2009. The intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane is currently signalized. Traffic data collected in September 2009 by ATS indicates that Cottonwood Road currently carries 4,700 VPD north of Huffine Lane. Fallon Street is a two-way, paved east/west local road that provides access to existing developments north of Huffine Lane. Fallon Street passes just to the north of the proposed development site and is currently constructed with designated bike lanes on each side of the roadway. Proposed Spring Creek Lot 4 Development Site 231 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 3 June 2011 Resort Drive is a newly constructed north/south route located between Cottonwood Road and Ferguson Avenue, which has designated bike lanes on each side. At the intersection with Huffine Lane the road is constructed with a channelized right-turn bay to restrict left-turn movements at the intersection. Traffic Counts In February 2010 Abelin Traffic Services collected new traffic data at three locations along Ferguson Avenue to update the traffic study for this project. The 2010 traffic study locations along Ferguson Road included the intersections of Huffine Lane, Valley Commons Drive, and Fallon Street. ATS also used data from a 2008 traffic count and the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. Traffic volumes along Huffine Lane have decreased over the past three years and are presently near the 2003 levels. Traffic data form MDT shows how traffic volumes in this area have varied over the past eight years. This data is presented in Table 1. It is likely that this trend will reverse over the next several years and traffic volumes will start to increase again. However, the rate of traffic volume increase is difficult to evaluate at this time. Table 1 – Huffine Lane Historic Average Daily Traffic Data Location (Huffine Lane) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 East of Cottonwood Road 17,215 18,130 19,885 19,195 22,515 22,515 22,580 19,835 19,675 Additional Developments Several other developments are approved and under construction in this area. The Norton East Ranch Phase I Development is currently under construction west of the Cottonwood Road. This development will ultimately include 332 mixed residential units and produce over 2,300 vehicle trips per day. The J&D Family Development is also under construction west of Cottonwood Road. This development will include up to 40 residential units, four car dealerships, service shops, and a variety of retail and mixed-commercial businesses on nine commercial lots. The J&D Family Development will produce 3,814 daily trips. As part of these projects Babcock Street and Fallon Street will be extended west of Cottonwood Road and designated left-turn lanes will be installed along Cottonwood Road for northbound and southbound traffic. Traffic volume data and vehicle trip generation and distribution information was taken from the traffic study produced for these projects and incorporated into this report for the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane. 232 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 4 June 2011 Level of Service Using the data collected for this project, ATS conducted a Level of Service (LOS) analysis at the area intersections. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) - Special Report 209 and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) version 5.4. 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. T h e L O S calculations are included in Appendix C. Table 2 shows the existing LOS conditions in this area based on the current traffic data. The table indicates that all of the intersections along Ferguson Road area currently operation at acceptable levels of service with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. TA B L E 2 – Existing Level of Service Summary INTERSECTION A M PM D E L A Y LOS D E L A Y LOS Ferguson Avenue & Huffine Lane 15.4 B 22.3 C Ferguson Avenue & Valley Commons Drive* 14.5 B 16.0 C Ferguson Avenue & Fallon Street* 19.0/11.5 C/B 21.5/15.5 C/C Huffine Lane & Cottonwood Road 16.5 B 19.3 B *Westbound/Eastbound Delay and LOS. D. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Spring Creek Village Subdivision would be developed into a mixed-use retail, recreational, and commercial center. The site may include banks, a food/drug stores, restaurant/bars, general retail spaces with second floor offices and possible third floor residential, a lodge, a driving range/putting course, and a chapel. The development would have accesses onto Fallon Street, Resort Drive, and Ferguson Avenue. LOT 4 of this project will include up to 250,000 square feet of mixed-use office and retail space. The current site-plan for LOT 4 of the Spring Creek Village development is shown in Figure 2. 233 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 5 June 2011 Figure 2 – Proposed Development 234 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 6 June 2011 Proposed Roadway Layout Most of the roadways surrounding the proposed development are already constructed. The developers propose to build the remaining roads within the proposed development to an urban standard with curb and gutter. Pedestrian and bicycle safety will be a focus for this project and many roadway improvements will be implemented with that goal in mind. The main roads which will be affected by this project are Huffine Lane (principal arterial), Ferguson Road (collector), Cottonwood Road (collector), Fallon Street (local), Resort Drive (local), and Valley Commons Drive (local). All of the roads within the development would be privately owned and maintained. T h e i n tersection of Resort Drive and Huffine Lane currently has a channelized right-turn lane to restrict vehicles to right-out only movements onto Huffine Lane. Right- and left-turning movements are currently allowed into Resort Drive. Huffine Lane currently has a designated left-turn deceleration lane at this location. No changes are planned at this intersection from this development. The intersection of Resort Drive and Spring Creek Village Drive is located 420 feet from Huffine Lane and would be designed with raised pedestrian crosswalks. This intersection is currently proposed as a four-way STOP to help facilitate the movement of pedestrians and vehicles through this area as soon as the areas east of Resort Drive begin to be developed. The development would leave right-of-way to allow the construction of an additional access to the west directly onto Cottonwood Road. This approach would be created when and if the adjacent properties to the west are developed. E. TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine anticipated future traffic volumes from the proposed development using 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 and commercial developments, ATS determined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. At full build-out of L O T 4 the proposed development would produce 358 AM peak hour trips, 323 PM peak hour trips, and 3,190 daily trips. The trip generation rates and totals are shown in Table 3. 235 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 7 June 2011 Table 3 – LOT 4 Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE Code Size A M Peak Hour Trip Ends per Unit Total AM Peak Hour Trip Ends AM In / Out PM Peak Hour Trip Ends per Unit Total PM Peak Hour Trip Ends PM In / Out Weekday Trip Ends per Unit Total Weekday Trip Ends Business Park 770 250,000 s.f. 1.43 358 301/ 57 1.29 323 74/ 249 12.76 3,190 Trip Types Three basic trip types describe the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development. These trip types include the following: New Trips- This is the basic trip type created by all traffic generators. These trips are defined as those trips that occur only to utilize one traffic generator at a proposed development site. This trip can generally be characterized as one that runs from a home to a destination and back home. Internal (Shared) Trips- These trips are created by associated facilities within or directly adjacent to the proposed development. The trips are combined into one joint trip to the development and do not represent additional trips on the surrounding road network. At present the types of land uses proposed for LOT 4 are not specific enough to create a meaningful calculation of shared trips. As the density increases with additional phases and land uses get more defined, the level of internal trip capture will become important in determining the developments overall traffic impacts. Pass-By Trips are those characterized by a vehicle which enters the development on their way to another destination. Upon leaving the driver continues along the roadway to their final destination. Pass-By trips are not generally considered new trips on the surrounding road network because they would exist whether or not the development has been constructed. A common example of this type of trip is a driver which stops at a grocery store on their way home from work. Pass-by trips can be discounted from the through traffic on the adjacent roadways but must be included making the appropriate turning maneuvers at intersections. At present the types of land uses proposed for LOT 4 are not specific enough to create a meaningful calculation of pass-by trips, but will likely reach a meaningful level with subsequent phases of the Spring Creek Village project. 236 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 8 June 2011 F. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The traffic distribution and assignment for the proposed subdivision was based upon the existing ADT volumes along the adjacent roadways and the peak-hour turning volumes. This trip distribution is shown on Figure 3. Traffic is expected to distribute itself as follows: • 33% to/from the west on Huffine Lane, • 33% to/from the east on Huffine Lane, • 17% to/from the north on Resort Drive, and • 5% to/from the north on Ferguson Avenue, and • 12% to/from the north on Cottonwood Road. Overall trip distribution characteristics and site-generated traffic are shown on figures in Appendix B. FIGURE 3 - Development Trip Distribution G. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT Using the trip generation and trip distribution numbers, ATS determined the future Level of Service for the area intersections. The anticipated LOS at these intersections with the proposed development is shown in Table 4. These calculations are based on the projected model volumes included in Appendix B of this report. Huffine Lane LOT 4 12% 17% 33% Durston Road Fallon Street 33% 5% 237 LOT 4 Spring Creek Village Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 9 June 2011 Table 4 –Level of Service Summary LOT 4 With Spring Creek Village INTERSECTION A M PM D E L A Y LOS D E L A Y LOS Ferguson Avenue & Huffine Lane 15.8 B 21.8 C Ferguson Avenue & Valley Commons Drive* 15.1 C 18.3 C Ferguson Avenue & Fallon Street* 20.9/12.3 C/B 21.7/15.8 C/C Huffine Lane & Cottonwood Road 19.6 B 21.0 C *Westbound/Eastbound Delay and LOS. Table 5 indicates that LOT 4 of the Spring Creek Village development will not alter the LOS at any of the near-by intersections. However, the unsignalized intersections along Fergusson Road will be near their functional capacity under their present configuration and may require additional mitigation if other phases of this project are developed. H. IMPACT SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS As proposed, the full development of LOT 4 of the Spring Creek Village Subdivision will not significantly impact the operations of any near-by intersections. All intersections will continue to function at acceptable levels of service and no intersection improvements will be necessary. 238 APPENDIX A Traffic Data 239 Abelin Traffic Services 130 S. Howie StreetHelena, MT 59601 File Name : cottonwoodam Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/24/2009 Page No : 2 COTTONWOOD Southbound HUFFINE Westbound COTTONWOOD Northbound HUFFINE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 28 23 21 0 72 2 153 8 0 163 13 15 25 0 53 31 232 37 0 300 588 07:45 AM 41 18 12 0 71 6 150 12 0 168 17 12 20 0 49 33 216 43 0 292 580 08:00 AM 28 30 7 0 65 3 129 7 0 139 10 9 13 0 32 28 245 42 0 315 551 08:15 AM 18 17 10 0 45 2 139 9 0 150 16 23 23 0 62 19 181 20 0 220 477 Total Volume 115 88 50 0 253 13 571 36 0 620 56 59 81 0 196 111 874 142 0 1127 2196 % App. Total 45.5 34.8 19.8 0 2.1 92.1 5.8 0 28.6 30.1 41.3 0 9.8 77.6 12.6 0 PHF .701 .733 .595 .000 .878 .542 .933 .750 .000 .923 .824 .641 .810 .000 .790 .841 .892 .826 .000 .894 .934 COTTONWOOD HUFFINE HUFFINE COTTONWOOD Right115 Thru88 Left50 Peds0 InOut Total214 253 467 Right13 Thru571 Left36 Peds0 OutTotalIn980 620 1600 Left81 Thru59 Right56 Peds0 Out TotalIn235 196 431 Left142 Thru874 Right111 Peds0 TotalOutIn767 1127 1894 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM UnshiftedBank 1 Peak Hour Data North 240 Abelin Traffic Services 130 S. Howie StreetHelena, MT 59601 File Name : cottonwoodpm Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/23/2009 Page No : 2 COTTONWOOD Southbound HUFFINE Westbound COTTONWOOD Northbound HUFFINE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:15 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 17 7 12 0 36 16 207 15 0 238 6 16 29 0 51 11 193 30 0 234 559 05:00 PM 29 15 8 0 52 14 222 18 0 254 13 39 35 0 87 18 243 42 0 303 696 05:15 PM 28 24 22 0 74 13 277 11 0 301 14 26 20 0 60 18 173 37 0 228 663 05:30 PM 33 11 7 0 51 8 228 23 0 259 8 13 24 0 45 14 229 42 0 285 640 Total Volume 107 57 49 0 213 51 934 67 0 1052 41 94 108 0 243 61 838 151 0 1050 2558 % App. Total 50.2 26.8 23 0 4.8 88.8 6.4 0 16.9 38.7 44.4 0 5.8 79.8 14.4 0 PHF .811 .594 .557 .000 .720 .797 .843 .728 .000 .874 .732 .603 .771 .000 .698 .847 .862 .899 .000 .866 .919 COTTONWOOD HUFFINE HUFFINE COTTONWOOD Right107 Thru57 Left49 Peds0 InOut Total296 213 509 Right51 Thru934 Left67 Peds0 OutTotalIn928 1052 1980 Left108 Thru94 Right41 Peds0 Out TotalIn185 243 428 Left151 Thru838 Right61 Peds0 TotalOutIn1149 1050 2199 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM UnshiftedBank 1 Peak Hour Data North 241 Abelin Traffic Services 130 S. Howie StreetHelena, MT 59601 File Name : FergAM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/21/2010 Page No : 2 FERGUSSON Southbound HUFFINE Westbound FERGUSSON Northbound HUFFINE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 50 0 69 0 119 29 119 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 32 0 244 511 08:00 AM 29 0 43 0 72 29 93 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 38 0 229 423 08:15 AM 27 0 43 0 70 24 105 0 1 130 0 0 0 0 0 2 166 41 0 209 409 08:30 AM 26 0 49 0 75 34 90 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 43 0 239 438 Total Volume 132 0 204 0 336 116 407 0 1 524 0 0 0 0 0 2 765 154 0 921 1781 % App. Total 39.3 0 60.7 0 22.1 77.7 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 83.1 16.7 0 PHF .660 .000 .739 .000 .706 .853 .855 .000 .250 .885 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .902 .895 .000 .944 .871 FERGUSSON HUFFINE HUFFINE FERGUSSON Right132 Thru0 Left204 Peds0 InOut Total270 336 606 Right116 Thru407 Left0 Peds1 OutTotalIn969 524 1493 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 Out TotalIn2 0 2 Left154 Thru765 Right2 Peds0 TotalOutIn539 921 1460 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM UnshiftedBank 1 Peak Hour Data North 242 Abelin Traffic Services 130 S. Howie StreetHelena, MT 59601 File Name : FergPM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/21/2010 Page No : 2 FERGUSSON Southbound HUFFINE Westbound FERGUSSON Northbound HUFFINE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:15 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 33 0 44 0 77 69 222 0 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 24 0 180 548 05:00 PM 47 0 51 0 98 75 225 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 35 0 220 618 05:15 PM 38 0 63 0 101 81 267 0 0 348 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 38 0 192 641 05:30 PM 36 0 52 0 88 51 235 0 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 39 0 211 585 Total Volume 154 0 210 0 364 276 949 0 0 1225 0 0 0 0 0 0 667 136 0 803 2392 % App. Total 42.3 0 57.7 0 22.5 77.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.1 16.9 0 PHF .819 .000 .833 .000 .901 .852 .889 .000 .000 .880 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .901 .872 .000 .913 .933 FERGUSSON HUFFINE HUFFINE FERGUSSON Right154 Thru0 Left210 Peds0 InOut Total412 364 776 Right276 Thru949 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn877 1225 2102 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 Out TotalIn0 0 0 Left136 Thru667 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn1103 803 1906 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North 243 Abelin Traffic Services 130 S. Howie StreetHelena, MT 59601 File Name : fowlerAM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/22/2010 Page No : 2 FERGUSSON Southbound FALLON Westbound FERGUSSON Northbound FALLON Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:15 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 1 79 10 0 90 3 0 11 0 14 12 23 14 0 49 9 1 0 0 10 163 07:45 AM 1 79 12 0 92 5 3 15 0 23 22 29 16 0 67 12 1 0 0 13 195 08:00 AM 0 48 6 0 54 2 1 11 0 14 12 48 13 0 73 3 0 0 0 3 144 08:15 AM 1 52 13 0 66 6 0 11 0 17 13 54 12 0 79 13 0 1 0 14 176 Total Volume 3 258 41 0 302 16 4 48 0 68 59 154 55 0 268 37 2 1 0 40 678 % App. Total 1 85.4 13.6 0 23.5 5.9 70.6 0 22 57.5 20.5 0 92.5 5 2.5 0 PHF .750 .816 .788 .000 .821 .667 .333 .800 .000 .739 .670 .713 .859 .000 .848 .712 .500 .250 .000 .714 .869 FERGUSSON FALLON FALLON FERGUSSON Right3 Thru258 Left41 Peds0 InOut Total171 302 473 Right16 Thru4 Left48 Peds0 OutTotalIn102 68 170 Left55 Thru154 Right59 Peds0 Out TotalIn343 268 611 Left1 Thru2 Right37 Peds0 TotalOutIn62 40 102 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM UnshiftedBank 1 Peak Hour Data North 244 Abelin Traffic Services 130 S. Howie StreetHelena, MT 59601 File Name : fowlerPM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 1/25/2010 Page No : 2 FERGUSSON Southbound FAL LON Westbound FERGUSSON Northbound FAL LON Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:15 PM to 05:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 4 66 3 0 73 4 2 2 0 8 3 71 24 0 98 17 1 1 0 19 198 05:00 PM 1 65 2 0 68 10 5 3 0 18 2 84 33 0 119 29 2 4 0 35 240 05:15 PM 1 73 3 0 77 3 4 1 0 8 1 99 40 0 140 19 1 4 0 24 249 05:30 PM 1 58 3 0 62 0 3 4 0 7 5 71 29 0 105 17 0 2 0 19 193 Total Volume 7 262 11 0 280 17 14 10 0 41 11 325 126 0 462 82 4 11 0 97 880 % App. Total 2.5 93.6 3.9 0 41.5 34.1 24.4 0 2.4 70.3 27.3 0 84.5 4.1 11.3 0 PHF .438 .897 .917 .000 .909 .425 .700 .625 .000 .569 .550 .821 .788 .000 .825 .707 .500 .688 .000 .693 .884 FERGUSSON FAL LON FAL LON FERGUSSON Right7 Thru262 Left11 Peds0 InOut Total353 280 633 Right17 Thru14 Left10 Peds0 OutTotalIn26 41 67 Left126 Thru325 Right11 Peds0 Out TotalIn354 462 816 Left11 Thru4 Right82 Peds0 TotalOutIn147 97 244 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North 245 APPENDIX B Traffic Model 246 00244Spring Creek VillageTraffic Model02010 AM Existing TrafficBabcock St.0Cottonwood AvenueResort DriveRavalk St.Fallon Str.The Ridge0036842031612048 601246444116488864480123840404000000024404411280384 2449261202001167248432 Huffine Lane 792792200276476 59292814810097609761282769286097684812452124 52247 00420Spring Creek VillageTraffic Model02010 PM Existing TrafficBabcock St.0Cottonwood AvenueResort DriveRavalk St.Fallon Str.The Ridge0041230841229216012 41616160443967641607607233204048000000420056116560332 42060888015232410043272 Huffine Lane 154415441522521068 139297216814076807681522529721567686167252132 52248 0737736Spring Creek Village616Site Generated Traffic111106Spring Creek Village AMBabcock St.15613032LOT 4361307214 7628Cottonwood AvenueResort Drive2Ravalk St.88221114227911 Fallon Str.211211The Ridge137682882OUT IN2301 5732% SW96 18033% SE99 19807% NW21 428% NE84 1650301 5750500029264503611587507 Huffine Lane467419501919167599509992505010 2IN57OUT 301249 030 930 9Spring Creek Village25525Site Generated Traffic5050227Spring Creek Village PMBabcock St.41578LOT 4131572063 1972Cottonwood AvenueResort Drive7Ravalk St.227936379193 Fallon Str.7393The Ridge561929227OUT IN774 24932% SW24 80033% SE24 82207% NW5 1728% NE21 701274 2491212007616121156621122 Huffine Lane 16171682128282723252401224408121228IN 249OUT 74250 000Spring Creek VillageTraffic ModelAM Model Volumes With Spring CreekBabcock St.LOT 4 DevelopmentCottonwood AvenueResort DriveRavalk St.Fallon Str.The Ridge00620316124860121264441169888012434040400000002440441859410367320011685721939 Huffine Lane200326495 61193721710010261283269377689812452251 000Spring Creek VillageTraffic ModelPM Model Volumes With Spring CreekBabcock St.LOT 4 DevelopmentCottonwood AvenueResort DriveRavalk St.Fallon Str.The Ridge11122921612416181604439688404834404072000000420056169155069903152324107213074 Huffine Lane1522641150 1474101226114078015226410121786287252252 APPENDIX C LOS Calculations 253 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine & Cottonwood Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume (vph)148 928 124 32 612 8 100 60 52 84 92 112 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 14.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 10.0 G = 35.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 15.0 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 74.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 148 1052 32 620 100 112 84 204 Lane Group Capacity 630 1681 437 1708 185 358 264 354 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.63 0.07 0.36 0.54 0.31 0.32 0.58 Green Ratio 0.69 0.47 0.69 0.47 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Uniform Delay d1 4.5 14.6 5.8 12.4 26.4 25.1 25.1 26.6 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.17 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 3.2 0.5 0.7 2.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 4.7 15.3 5.8 12.5 29.6 25.6 25.8 28.9 Lane Group LOS A B A B C C C C Approach Delay 14.0 12.2 27.5 28.0 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 16.5 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 10:56 AM Page 1 of 1Short Report 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k2387.tmp 254 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine & Cottonwood Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume (vph)168 972 72 72 888 56 140 156 52 32 60 116 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 14.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 10.0 G = 30.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 20.0 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 74.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 168 1044 72 944 140 208 32 176 Lane Group Capacity 420 1451 386 1453 301 494 273 463 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.72 0.19 0.65 0.47 0.42 0.12 0.38 Green Ratio 0.62 0.41 0.62 0.41 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Uniform Delay d1 8.4 18.5 8.4 17.8 22.5 22.2 20.3 22.0 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.6 1.8 0.2 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.5 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 9.0 20.2 8.6 18.8 23.7 22.8 20.5 22.5 Lane Group LOS A C A B C C C C Approach Delay 18.7 18.1 23.2 22.2 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 19.3 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 10:57 AM Page 1 of 1Short Report 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k2399.tmp 255 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine / Ferguson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph)128 848 476 116 276 200 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 15.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G = 46.0 G = G = G = G = 32.0 G = G = G = Y = 7 Y = Y = Y = Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 128 848 476 116 276 200 Lane Group Capacity 512 1849 1849 825 642 574 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.46 0.26 0.14 0.43 0.35 Green Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.36 0.36 Uniform Delay d1 12.3 14.0 12.4 11.6 22.1 21.3 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 12.6 14.2 12.5 11.7 22.5 21.7 Lane Group LOS B B B B C C Approach Delay 14.0 12.3 22.2 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 15.4 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 10:58 AM Page 1 of 1Short Report 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k23AE.tmp 256 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine / Ferguson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph)152 616 1068 324 252 152 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 15.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G = 13.0 G = 40.0 G = G = G = 30.0 G = G = G = Y = 3 Y = 7 Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 97.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 175 708 1187 360 286 173 Lane Group Capacity 352 2089 1492 666 558 499 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.34 0.80 0.54 0.51 0.35 Green Ratio 0.62 0.58 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.31 Uniform Delay d1 15.0 10.8 24.9 21.6 27.5 25.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.34 0.14 0.12 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 1.1 0.1 3.1 0.9 0.8 0.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 16.1 10.9 28.0 22.4 28.3 26.3 Lane Group LOS B B C C C C Approach Delay 11.9 26.7 27.6 Approach LOS B C C Intersection Delay 22.3 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 10:58 AM Page 1 of 1Short Report 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k23C0.tmp 257 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Fallon / Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Project Description Spring Creek Village East/West Street: Fallon St. North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)64 116 88 48 316 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)64 116 88 48 316 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)4 4 48 60 12 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)4 4 48 60 12 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)64 48 92 56 C (m) (veh/h)1251 1380 348 608 v/c 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.09 95% queue length 0.16 0.11 1.04 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.7 19.0 11.5 LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s/veh)----19.0 11.5 Approach LOS ----C B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 10:59 AM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k23C5.tmp 258 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Fallon / Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Project Description Spring Creek East/West Street: Fallon St. North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)160 396 4 12 292 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)160 396 4 12 292 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)16 4 76 4 16 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)16 4 76 4 16 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)160 12 32 96 C (m) (veh/h)1277 1170 250 438 v/c 0.13 0.01 0.13 0.22 95% queue length 0.43 0.03 0.43 0.83 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 8.1 21.5 15.5 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)----21.5 15.5 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 11:00 AM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k23CC.tmp 259 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Valley Commons/ Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Project Description Spring Creek Village East/West Street: Valley Commons North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 244 44 40 384 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 244 44 40 384 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 40 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.73 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 40 0 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 40 52 C (m) (veh/h) 1286 431 v/c 0.03 0.12 95% queue length 0.10 0.41 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 14.5 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)----14.5 Approach LOS ----B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 11:00 AM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k23D0.tmp 260 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Valley Commons/ Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year Existing Project Description Spring Creek Village East/West Street: Valley Commons North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 420 56 40 332 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 420 56 40 332 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 48 72 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.73 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 48 0 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 40 120 C (m) (veh/h) 1097 447 v/c 0.04 0.27 95% queue length 0.11 1.07 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 16.0 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh)----16.0 Approach LOS ----C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 5/20/2011 11:01 AM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 5/20/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k23D5.tmp 261 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine & Cottonwood Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume (vph)217 937 124 39 673 94 100 76 52 219 103 185 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 14.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 10.0 G = 30.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 19.0 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 73.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 217 1061 39 767 100 128 219 288 Lane Group Capacity 501 1461 389 1459 193 464 331 447 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.73 0.10 0.53 0.52 0.28 0.66 0.64 Green Ratio 0.63 0.41 0.63 0.41 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Uniform Delay d1 7.1 18.1 7.8 16.2 23.1 21.5 24.1 24.0 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.24 0.22 Incremental Delay d2 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.4 2.5 0.3 4.9 3.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 7.7 19.9 8.0 16.5 25.5 21.8 29.0 27.2 Lane Group LOS A B A B C C C C Approach Delay 17.8 16.1 23.5 28.0 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 19.6 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:32 PM Page 1 of 1Short Report 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k260.tmp 262 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine & Cottonwood Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume (vph)261 1012 72 74 903 155 140 178 52 130 69 169 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 14.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 10.0 G = 30.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 20.0 G = G = G = Y = 4 Y = 6 Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 74.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 261 1084 74 1058 140 230 130 238 Lane Group Capacity 382 1452 373 1434 247 496 254 459 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.75 0.20 0.74 0.57 0.46 0.51 0.52 Green Ratio 0.62 0.41 0.62 0.41 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Uniform Delay d1 11.7 18.8 8.8 18.7 23.3 22.5 22.9 22.9 Delay Factor k 0.25 0.30 0.11 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.12 Incremental Delay d2 5.0 2.2 0.3 2.1 3.0 0.7 1.8 1.0 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 16.7 20.9 9.0 20.7 26.3 23.2 24.6 24.0 Lane Group LOS B C A C C C C C Approach Delay 20.1 20.0 24.4 24.2 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Delay 21.0 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:32 PM Page 1 of 1Short Report 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k273.tmp 263 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine / Ferguson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph)128 898 495 116 326 200 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 15.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G = 46.0 G = G = G = G = 32.0 G = G = G = Y = 7 Y = Y = Y = Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 128 898 495 116 326 200 Lane Group Capacity 499 1849 1849 825 642 574 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.49 0.27 0.14 0.51 0.35 Green Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.36 0.36 Uniform Delay d1 12.4 14.3 12.5 11.6 22.8 21.3 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 12.7 14.5 12.5 11.7 23.5 21.7 Lane Group LOS B B B B C C Approach Delay 14.3 12.4 22.8 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Delay 15.8 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:33 PM Page 1 of 1Short Report 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k287.tmp 264 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency or Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Huffine / Ferguson Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 Lane Group L T T R L R Volume (vph)152 628 1150 324 264 152 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 15.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G = 13.0 G = 40.0 G = G = G = 30.0 G = G = G = Y = 3 Y = 7 Y = Y = Y = 4 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 97.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 152 628 1150 324 264 152 Lane Group Capacity 363 2089 1492 666 558 499 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.30 0.77 0.49 0.47 0.30 Green Ratio 0.62 0.58 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.31 Uniform Delay d1 13.7 10.5 24.6 21.0 27.1 25.5 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.8 0.1 2.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 14.5 10.6 27.1 21.5 27.7 25.9 Lane Group LOS B B C C C C Approach Delay 11.3 25.9 27.1 Approach LOS B C C Intersection Delay 21.8 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:34 PM Page 1 of 1Short Report 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\s2k29A.tmp 265 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Fallon / Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Project Description Spring Creek Village East/West Street: Fallon St. North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)64 116 88 48 316 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)64 116 88 48 316 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)12 4 98 60 12 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)12 4 98 60 12 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)64 48 92 114 C (m) (veh/h)1249 1380 317 608 v/c 0.05 0.03 0.29 0.19 95% queue length 0.16 0.11 1.18 0.68 Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.7 20.9 12.3 LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s/veh)----20.9 12.3 Approach LOS ----C B Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:35 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k2A0.tmp 266 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Fallon / Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Project Description Spring Creek East/West Street: Fallon St. North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)160 396 4 12 292 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)160 396 4 12 292 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)18 4 88 4 16 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)18 4 88 4 16 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)160 12 32 110 C (m) (veh/h)1269 1170 248 442 v/c 0.13 0.01 0.13 0.25 95% queue length 0.43 0.03 0.44 0.97 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 8.1 21.7 15.8 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)----21.7 15.8 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:35 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k2A7.tmp 267 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-11 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Valley Commons/ Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Project Description Spring Creek Village East/West Street: Valley Commons North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 244 44 40 434 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 244 44 40 434 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 40 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 40 0 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 40 52 C (m) (veh/h) 1286 407 v/c 0.03 0.13 95% queue length 0.10 0.44 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 15.1 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh)----15.1 Approach LOS ----C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:36 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k2AC.tmp 268 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Agency/Co.Abelin Traffic Services Date Performed 4-4-10 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Valley Commons/ Ferguson Jurisdiction MDT / City of Bozeman Analysis Year With Development - LOT 4 Project Description Spring Creek Village East/West Street: Valley Commons North/South Street: Ferguson Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 420 56 40 344 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 420 56 40 344 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 72 48 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 72 0 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 40 120 C (m) (veh/h) 1097 389 v/c 0.04 0.31 95% queue length 0.11 1.29 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 18.3 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh)----18.3 Approach LOS ----C Copyright © 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.4 Generated: 6/2/2011 1:36 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 6/2/2011file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob Abelin\Local Settings\Temp\u2k2B1.tmp 269 Precedents 270 Precedents 271 272