HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRAFT_North Park PER 10.2.13 with land use plan
CTA, Inc. 121 South Main Street Livingston, Montana 59047 (406) 222-0104
NORTH PARK PROPERTIES BOZEMAN, MT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
OCTOBER 2013 CTA Project No.: NPPP_PER
TITLE PAGE 1
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE
NORTH PARK PROPERTIES PROJECT
BOZEMAN, MT
PREPARED FOR CITY OF BOZEMAN
PROSPERA BUSSINESS NETWORK
SEALED AND SIGNED
ORIGINAL COPY ON FILE AT _________, MONTANA OFFICE OF CLERK & RECORDER
Prepared by:
CTA, Inc. Project No.: NPPP_PER
121 South Main Street P.O. Box 1153 Livingston, MT 59047
Ph: (406) 222-0104 Fax: (406) 222-1007
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents
TOC-1
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\000_TOC.docx 2013-10-02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 – 4
CHAPTER 2 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 – 3
CHAPTER 3 – PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................. 1 – 6
CHAPTER 4 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT & ANALYSIS ............................................................. 1 – 7
CHAPTER 5 – DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ................................... 1 – 6
CHAPTER 6 – RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................... 1 – 3
EXHIBITS EXH1 PROJECT LIMITS
EXH2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
EXH3 INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN
EXH4 NORTH PARK PROPERTIES LAND USE PLAN – OPTION D
EXH5 North Park Properties Phasing Plan – Option D
UTL1 EXISTING UTILITY PLAN
UTL2 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN
UTL2B PROPOSED SEWER DRAINAGE AREAS
UTL3 DRAINAGE PLAN
UTL3B DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATION
C300-C311 CONCEPTUAL WATER & SEWER PLAN & PROFILES
APPENDIX A NORTH PARK PROPERTIES CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN
APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND RELATED APPENDICES
APPENDIX C COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX D PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
APPENDIX E AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS
APPENDIX F PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX G CITY OF BOZEMAN FINANCIAL DATA
APPENDIX H PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER DESIGN DATA
CITY WILL SERVE LETTER
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX I PRELIMINARY WATER DESIGN DATA
1-1
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this engineering study is to provide the City of Bozeman and the Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) with necessary information for making decisions about the overall improvements
associated with the North Park Properties Project that fall within the City’s jurisdiction with a primary focus on water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater facilities.
These improvements are designed to meet the current requirements of State and Federal regulations for a
20-year planning period. A synopsis of project background, alternatives and recommended improvements are presented in this Executive Summary. This summary is organized by major headers to be consistent with
the remaining five chapters of this report.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The North Park Properties is a 275 acre combination of land owned by the Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) and the City of Bozeman within the Bozeman city limits. The City-owned portion of the property
consists of approximately 85 acres, and is zoned M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District). The DNRC-owned portion of the property consists of approximately 190 acres and is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing
District). The combined properties currently support agricultural activities.
Both properties are within the boundaries of an industrial tax increment finance, or TIF, district. The district was established in 2006 with a 15 year term. A TIF District would allow for city property tax income to be re-
invested into improvements within the district. See Appendix G for map of the City’s TIF districts.
The North Park Properties vision is to create a place in southwest Montana wherein manufactures of products, i.e. textiles, vaccines, lasers, informatics, etc., can realize cost savings, increase efficiencies or
take advantage of the existing Tax Increment Finance District (TIF) or future Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) and/or proximities to transportation corridors and air services by strategically locating, re-locating or
expanding operations into an area supportive of efforts to encourage job growth and increase the economic diversity of southwest Montana. An FTZ would be used for the purpose of establishing a duty-free (or
reduced payment) fenced-in space for warehousing, storage, distribution facilities, manufacturing, and other value-added services. For this vision to be implemented significant improvements to infrastructure would be
required. These improvements would focus on the fundamental heath, life, and safety issues associated with domestic water service, sanitary sewer service, storm water drainage utilities, power, gas,
telecommunications, and traffic circulation and impacts.
This document will address the limited infrastructure resources on the property. There is an absence of a road network, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and sanitary sewer facilities, domestic water facilities, and storm
water drainage facilities. Other resources include: gas, power, and telecommunications.
1.2 CURRENT AND FUTURE SITUATION
The planning area utilized for the scoping and site analysis includes the 85-acre City of Bozeman owned property and the 190-acre DNRC owned property. Also, included in the area are transportation route
extensions connecting into existing City of Bozeman streets. The planning area is shown on EXH1.
North Park Properties is bordered by Interstate 90 to the west and Red Wing Drive to the northeast. Adjacent and northeast of Red Wing Drive is MRL rail line and Highway 10. South and Southeast of the properties is
existing development. Within the planning area is the Mandeville Creek corridor.
The project area generally includes the entire planning area. The land use plan proposed the City of Bozeman and DNRC properties would be built-out/developed in four phases. Infrastructure phasing will not
necessarily coincide with the phasing set forth in the land use plan. For implementation of the land use plan phasing, two phases of infrastructure improvements would be required. The infrastructure improvements
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1– Executive Summary
1-2
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\001_CHAPTER 1.docx 2013-10-02
would consist of water, sewer, storm, and transportation facilities. See EXH3 for a proposed infrastructure phasing plan. The project area is shown on EXH2. The City of Bozeman provides routine maintenance and service of the existing sewer, water and
transportation facilities, except for US HWY 10, adjacent to the project area. US HWY 10 is within the jurisdiction of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) where they provide the routine maintenance
and service of the road and related drainage structures. Utilities such as phone, cable and power are serviced and maintained by their respective owners.
The existing water system was installed in approximately 2001 and the sanitary system was constructed in
1988.
As state above, there is an absence of infrastructure within the project area. This report focuses on the needed infrastructure improvements for implementation of the different phases of the North Park Properties
Land Use Plan. See EXH3 for infrastructure phasing plan and EXH5 for land use phasing plan. 1.3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The alternative analysis begins as a screening process that describes and analyzes available options or alternatives to solve a particular issue or problem. An early screening describes why particular alternatives
are not suitable to remedy the issue or problem, and thus are not investigated further. This process shows that options were not overlooked. Depending on the problem to be solved, there may be only one
alternative. This may be due to simply that there is only one acceptable solution to the jurisdiction involved in the design process or limiting local jurisdiction design guidelines.
The alternatives for the North Park Properties were based on and limited to the City preferred land use
Option D as shown in the North Park Properties Land Use Plan and EXH4. The alternatives were further developed based on conversations with the City of Bozeman Engineering Department and their preferences.
The following is a brief summary of the alternatives developed. 1.4 DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
The Alternatives developed for improvements focused on capital costs, operation/maintenance costs for improvements, addressing public health and safety, and meeting the ongoing user needs within and adjacent
to the project area.
The alternative considered and developed in detail for water distribution system improvements are: Option A: Connect into City of Bozeman existing water system and install new ductile
iron water mains within proposed project area. Both domestic and fire flows will be provided. The existing 12” main running north-south in the project
area, the existing 12” main running parallel to HWY 10, and the existing 8” main in Flora Ln. are the proposed points of connection. Separate domestic
and fire services will be required for each parcel. This option would require a bore and jack under the railroad and HWY 10.
The alternative considered and developed in detail for sanitary collection system improvements are:
Option A: Connect into City of Bozeman sanitary collection system via installing new sanitary sewer mains within proposed project area and convey flows via
gravity flow to an existing Reeves Road and HWY 10 manhole. This option would require a bore and jack under the railroad and HWY 10. Other
connections to the existing 10” sanitary sewer main will be required to serve portions of the eastern project area. In connection with the sewer
improvements, an all-weather 12 feet wide access road over the existing water and sewer lines within the project area will be required.
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1– Executive Summary
1-3
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\001_CHAPTER 1.docx 2013-10-02
The alternative considered and developed in detail for stormwater system improvements are: Option A: Install storm sewer system within roadways per City of Bozeman standards and provide services to parcels. Storm sewer system would ultimately convey flows to regional detention ponds located on the north end of the
project near Mandeville Creek.
The alternatives considered and developed in detail for transportation and pedestrian system improvements are:
Option A: Install transportation improvements according to the intent of the North Park Properties land use plan. Transportation improvements would be installed
per any requirements set forth in traffic studies and per City and MDT requirements.
Further description of the preferred alternatives and cost development is presented in Chapter 5.
1.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
Taking into consideration capital costs, annual O&M costs, and other non-economic factors discussed in
Chapters 5 and 6, the preferred improvement alternative were developed. The preferred alternatives preliminary opinion of probable cost is shown in Table 1-1. A full itemized cost
estimate is shown in Appendix C. TABLE 1-1
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Estimate
Water Distribution - Improvements 1 LS $ 2,333,844.32
Sanitary Collection - Improvements 1 LS $ 1,653,312.10
Storm Water- Improvements 1 LS $ 2,519,258.43
Transportation - Improvements 1 LS $ 6,135,808.60
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements 1 LS $ 1,940,452.50
Project Total $ 14,582,675.95
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1– Executive Summary
1-4
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\001_CHAPTER 1.docx 2013-10-02
The proposed implementation schedule is presented below in Table 1-2. TABLE 1-2 PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Task Description Time Frame
1. Preliminary Engineering Report Approval and
Adoption Spring 2014
2. Secure Design & Construction Funding Spring/Summer 2015 & Ongoing
3. Begin Design Spring/Summer 2015
4. Completion of Final Plans and Specifications Winter 2015
5. Agency Review and Approval Winter 2015
6. Advertise / Negotiate Construction Contract Winter/Spring 2015-16
7. Award Construction Contract Winter/Spring 2015-16
8. Begin Construction Summer 2016
9. Complete Construction Summer 2017
10. One Year Certification 1 year after completing construction
2-1
CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the need for infrastructure improvements related to the North Park Properties
Project. Discussion in this chapter and the following chapters uses the “North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan” as the basis for the needed infrastructure improvements. This chapter will also state
objectives of the plan, scope of work, planning area under consideration, and report organization.
2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE ENGINEERING REPORT
The objective of this engineering study is to provide the City of Bozeman and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNRC) with necessary information for making decisions about the overall improvements associated with the North Park Properties Project that fall within the City’s jurisdiction with a primary focus
on water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater facilities. Completion of this study is also required by the various state and federal regulatory agencies in order to fund and implement the proposed improvements
within the project area.
This report will establish a recommended course of action and basis of design for the identified improvements and the anticipated requirements of Local, State and Federal regulations. The planning
period for the four phases of improvements is 20 years.
2.2 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
The North Park Properties is a 275 acre combination of land owned by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNRC) and the City of Bozeman within the Bozeman city limits. The City-owned portion of the property consists of approximately 85 acres, and is zoned M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District).
The DNRC-owned portion of the property consists of approximately 190 acres and is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). The combined properties currently support agricultural activities.
Both properties are within the boundaries of an industrial tax increment finance, or TIF, district. The
district was established in 2006 with a 15 year term. A TIF District would allow for city property tax income to be re-invested into improvements within the district. See Appendix G for map of the City’s TIF districts.
In September of 2011, the City and the DNRC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
collaborate on a land use plan for the properties known as the North Park Properties.
On April 9, 2012 the City selected and authorized CTA to commence work of the North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan.
On January 7, 2013 the City Commission approved the North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan.
In March 2013, CTA was selected by the City of Bozeman to complete a Preliminary Engineering Report
for the North Park Properties. The preparation of this report was completed under the direction of the City of Bozeman and DNRC, with guidance from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and
Montana Rail Link (MRL).
The North Park Properties vision is to create a place in southwest Montana wherein manufactures of products, i.e. textiles, vaccines, lasers, informatics, etc., can realize cost savings, increase efficiencies or
take advantage of the existing Tax Increment Finance District (TIF) or future Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) and/or proximities to transportation corridors and air services by strategically locating, re-locating or
expanding operations into an area supportive of efforts to encourage job growth and increase the economic diversity of southwest Montana. An FTZ would be used for the purpose of establishing a duty-
free (or reduced payment) fenced-in space for warehousing, storage, distribution facilities, manufacturing, and other value-added services. For this vision to be implemented significant improvements to
infrastructure would be required. These improvements would focus on the fundamental heath, life, and
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Introduction
2-2
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\002_CHAPTER 2.docx 2013-10-02
safety issues associated with domestic water service, sanitary sewer service, storm water drainage utilities, power, gas, telecommunications, and traffic circulation and impacts. The engineering report is prepared utilizing the guidelines of the State of Montana and is a systematic
evaluation of feasible improvements using the Uniform Application for Public Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report format. The approach is intended to assure the selection of cost-effective and
environmentally sound municipal improvements.
This document will address the limited infrastructure resources on the property. There is an absence of a road network, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and sanitary sewer facilities, domestic water facilities, and storm
water drainage facilities. Other resources include: gas, power, and telecommunications.
2.3 PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION
The planning area utilized for the scoping and site analysis includes the 85-acre City of Bozeman owned
property and the 190-acre DNRC owned property. Also, included in the area are transportation route extensions connecting into existing City of Bozeman streets. The planning area is shown on EXH1.
North Park Properties is bordered by Interstate 90 to the west and Red Wing Drive to the northeast.
Adjacent and northeast of Red Wing Drive is MRL rail line and Highway 10. South and Southeast of the properties is existing development. Within the planning area is the Mandeville Creek corridor.
The project area generally includes the entire planning area. The land use plan proposed the City of
Bozeman and DNRC properties would be built-out/developed in four phases. Infrastructure phasing will not necessarily coincide with the phasing set forth in the land use plan. For implementation of the land
use plan phasing, two phases of infrastructure improvements would be required. The infrastructure improvements would consist of water, sewer, storm, and transportation facilities. See EXH3 for a
proposed infrastructure phasing plan. The project area is shown on EXH2.
This report will use the completed land use plan as a basis for design, costing, and scoping. 2.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into separate sections and sub-sections as summarized in the Table of Contents. Figures and tables are numbered consecutively within each section. Figures and tables are included
within each section in which they are first referenced.
The report also contains a number of appendices, which provide documentation to support the evaluation of the improvement opportunities and cost estimates of various alternatives. A complete list of
appendices appears in the Table of Contents. The report’s major tasks are defined as follows:
I. Executive Summary and Introduction (Chapters 1 & 2)
II. Problem Definition (Chapter 3)
• Identify the planning and existing/potential service area, which includes a description of
the planning area boundaries, land use, population, environmental resources that are present, potential growth and population trends given a 20 year planning period.
• Evaluate the condition of the existing facilities including a layout, history, a condition
analysis, and financial status.
• Describe and document the purpose and need for the project and the problems to be
solved, including health and safety, operation and maintenance, growth, and unresolved problems.
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Introduction
2-3
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\002_CHAPTER 2.docx 2013-10-02
• Design Requirements for Improvements.
III. Alternative Development (Chapter 4)
• Screen and describe Alternatives to address problems to be solved, including the no
action alternative, in order to document that no reasonable option was overlooked. Options may be eliminated and not discussed further if obviously not suitable for implementation.
IV. Alternative Analysis (Chapter 4)
• Analyze alternatives including a description, layout, requirements such as operational,
energy, regulatory compliance and permitting, land. The alternative analysis also includes environmental considerations, construction problems, and cost estimates. A preferred
alternative is selected based on these criteria.
V. Detailed Description of the Preferred Alternative (Chapter 5)
• The detailed description of the preferred alternative includes additional site location
information and characteristics, unique operational requirements, impacts to existing facilities, and specific design criteria related to the preferred alternative. The description also includes
environmental impacts and mitigation requirements and a cost summary with a cost estimate, capital expenses, operational expenses, maintenance expenses, and debt repayment,
coverage and reserve requirements.
VI. Recommendations and Implementation (Chapter 6)
• A description of funding strategy and resultant user costs is provided to identify how to best implement the preferred alternative. Public participation should be included with this
section to document comments regarding the environmental concerns and the proposed project in general.
Environmental documentation, including the Uniform Environmental Checklist will be included
in Appendix B.
3-1
CHAPTER 3
PROBLEM DEFINITION
A. Planning Area, Existing Service Area(s), Potential Service Area(s)
1. Location – The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Bozeman, Montana. The site is adjacent
to Interstate 90, Red Wing Drive/Montana Rail Link, and developed properties in T1S, R5E, Section 36. Approximate elevation is 4,685 feet MSL.
2. Physical Characteristics of the Area – The North Park Properties consists of approximately 275 acres.
The area consists of mainly agricultural crop land. A drainage corridor(Mandeville Creek) flows through the center of property towards the East Gallatin River. An existing home, farm outbuildings, and two
communications towers are also located on the property. Refer to exhibit EXH2. 3. Environmental Resources Present – A Uniform Environmental Checklist for the project was completed upon development of the preferred alternatives to address environmental and related concerns for the
project. The issues addressed in this document include:
• Land use/formally classified lands – (farmland, range land, forestland)
• Biological resources
• Water resource Issues – (quality and quantity)
• Surface Water
• Groundwater
• 100/500 year floodplains
• Wetlands, including stream crossings
• Cultural resources
• Socio-economic/Environmental justice issues
The Uniform Environmental Checklist and associated relevant exhibits and maps are included in Appendix B.
Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Assessment was completed for both the City of Bozeman and
DNRC properties in a report titled “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – State of Montana DNRC City of Bozeman Mandeville Properties Bozeman, MT” by Hyalite Environmental dated September 2012.
This assessment is not included with this report but can be provided upon request.
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK
BOZEMAN, MT
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3 – Problem Definition
3-2
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\003_CHAPTER 3.docx 2013-10-02
4. Growth Areas and Population Trends – The United States Census Bureau estimated the 2012 City of
Bozeman population to be 38,695, with a growth rate of 3.8%. B. Evaluation of Existing Facilities & Infrastructure
1. Schematic Layout –See exhibit UTL1 showing the existing facilities and utilities within the project area.
History – The City of Bozeman provides routine maintenance and service of the existing sewer, water
and transportation facilities, except for US HWY 10, adjacent to the project area. US HWY 10 is within
the jurisdiction of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) where they provide the routine
maintenance and service of the road and related drainage structures. Utilities such as phone, cable
and power are serviced and maintained by their respective owners.
3. Analysis of Existing Facilities –
a. Roads – Interstate 90, Mandeville Lane, US HWY 10, Red Wing Drive, Flora Lane, and 7th Avenue are existing transportation facilities on the edges of the project area.
b. Stormwater – The only existing storm water facilities within the project and planning areas are
culverts at Red Wing Drive and other access roads on the site which convey Mandeville Creek flow.
c. Water Distribution- The existing water distribution system within and near the boundaries of the
project area is operated and maintained by the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. There is an existing 12” ductile iron class 51 water main running parallel and just north of Highway 10 and
also north-south through the eastern portion of the project area. This 12” main was installed in 2001/2002. Near the east boundary of the project area there is an 8” DI CL 51 water main running
north-south in North 7th Avenue. Near the south boundary of the site there is an existing 12” ductile iron line, installed in 1978, in Mandeville Lane and an 8” ductile line in Flora Lane. See exhibit
UTL1 for a layout of the existing water utilities.
The service life for pipe is estimated at 50-70 years subject to service conditions.
d. Sanitary Sewer Collection- The existing sanitary sewer collection system is operated and maintained by the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. There is an existing 10” PVC main
flowing to the north through the project area. The 10” main has an approximate install date of 1988. The 10” main connects into a manhole on the north side of Highway 10, where there are parallel
20” mains flowing to the northwest. The parallel mains combine near the intersection of Highway 10 and Reaves Road, where the sewer main ultimately extends to the wastewater treatment plant.
The parallel mains have install dates of 1969 and 1988. See exhibit UTL1 for a layout of the existing sewer utilities.
The service life for pipe is estimated at 50-70 years subject to service conditions.
e. Gas- Northwestern Energy provides natural gas within the project area.
f. Power- Northwestern Energy provides power within the project area. There are existing overhead
and buried power lines within and near the project area.
g. Lighting – There currently is no existing street lighting system. Street lighting meeting City of Bozeman and MDT standards will be required for the project.
h. Telephone / Communications- There are currently no telephone and communications service in
the project area. Century Link and Charter are the providers of both telephone and communication services within the project and planning area. It should be noted there are two existing
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3 – Problem Definition
3-3
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\003_CHAPTER 3.docx 2013-10-02
communications towers within the project area. One is located within an easement on City of
Bozeman property. The other is located within an easement on DNRC property.
i. Bozeman Solvent Site Controlled Groundwater Area – Both the City of Bozeman and DNRC
properties are located within this area. There are specific limitations to groundwater wells. See Section D Part 3 below for more specific information.
j. Yellowstone Pipeline (Owned by Phillips 66) – An existing 10” steel pipe used for transporting
jet fuel, unleaded gasoline, and diesel is located on the site. See exhibit UTL1.
4. Financial Status of Facilities – In general, per communications with the City of Bozeman finance department, all debt reserve requirements are met. City Information regarding rate schedules, annual
operating and maintenance costs, tabulation of users by usage categories, and revenue received for last three fiscal years are located in Appendix G. See Table 3-1 and 3-2 below information regarding target
rates and water and sewer monthly rates.
Table 3-1: Target Rates
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INFORMATION FOR BOZEMAN
Amounts are computed using the 2000 census and target percentages based on
a target rate survey completed in 2003.
Census Designated Place (CDP) Bozeman (city)
County Gallatin
Total Population 27,509
Total Households 10,877
Median Household Income $32,156
Percent Low & Moderate Income 46.40%
Percent Poverty 20.20%
Target Rates
Water & Waste Water $61.63
Water Only $37.52
WasteWater Only $24.12
Solid Waste Only $8.04
Target Percentages
Water & Waste Water 2.30%
Water Only 1.40%
WasteWater Only 0.90%
Solid Waste Only 0.30%
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3 – Problem Definition
3-4
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\003_CHAPTER 3.docx 2013-10-02
Table 3-2: City of Bozeman Monthly Water and Sewer Rates
C. Purpose & Need- The purpose of this project is to provide the needed infrastructure improvements under
the jurisdiction of the City of Bozeman for implementation of the North Park Properties vision and purpose, meets the needs of the community and the public at large, and protect cultural and natural resources within
and adjacent to the project area.
1. Health and Safety – the primary goal of this report is to address the infrastructure requirements and
needs for the North Park Properties project. The goal takes into account the health and safety of the
general public and meets the guidelines set forth by local, state, and federal agencies.
2. System O&M – Operation and Maintenance Issues were evaluated for the utilities within the project area.
a. Stormwater- Currently, there are no City stormwater utilities within the project area. New facilities
will be designed according to City design criteria and specifications. The City maintains a schedule for annual maintenance of City storm inlets, manholes, and piping.
b. Water- During meetings with the City of Bozeman Engineering Department and Public Works
Department no major issues with the mains in and adjacent to our project area were revealed. The Public Works Department uses a “Cityworks” a GIS-centric based software for managing water
infrastructure. Typically, water mains are flushed every two years and hydrants are flowed every three years. Water mains are flushed to prevent the buildup of sediments over time and flowed to
check pressures, flow rates, and also can help to identify leaks. The existing mains within the project area should not need to be replaced within the 20 year planning period.
c. Sanitary- During meetings with the City of Bozeman Engineering Department and Public Works
Department no major issues with the mains in and adjacent to our project area were revealed. The Public Works Department uses a “Cityworks” a GIS-centric based software for managing sewer
infrastructure. Typically, sewer mains are jetted every two years to prevent clogging of lines. The existing mains within the project area should not need to be replaced within the 20 year planning
period.
d. Transportation and Pedestrian Facilities– Currently, there are no transportation and pedestrian facilities within the project area. The land use plan identified new interior roads within the project
area, intersections improvements at HWY 99, 7th Avenue, and Mandeville Ln, and a new overpass connecting Mandeville Ln. and E. Baxter Ln. Included with the new overpass would be the
FISCAL
YEAR
ENDED
JUNE 30,
MONTHLY
BASE
RATE
RATE per
1,000
GALLONS
MONTHLY
BASE
RATE
RATE per
1,000
GALLONS
2003 9.92$ 16.06$ 10.74$ 17.80$
2004 9.92$ 17.24$ 10.74$ 17.80$
2005 10.42$ 16.83$ 8.59$ 14.20$
2006 11.46$ 18.53$ 9.88$ 16.30$
2007 12.60$ 19.74$ 10.87$ 18.00$
2008 12.60$ 19.74$ 11.17$ 18.50$
2009 12.60$ 19.74$ 12.13$ 20.10$
2010 13.00$ 20.37$ 13.37$ 22.15$
2011 13.42$ 21.02$ 14.73$ 24.41$
2012 14.02$ 21.96$ 15.61$ 25.87$
SEWERWATER
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3 – Problem Definition
3-5
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\003_CHAPTER 3.docx 2013-10-02
necessary improvements for Mandeville Ln. and E. Baxter Ln. The land use plan also indicated a
system of trails and sidewalks within the project area, ultimately connecting to City of Bozeman pedestrian facilities. e. Power and Gas- The operation and maintenance of the existing power and gas distribution is the
responsibility of Northwestern Energy. During meetings with Northwestern Energy no major issues
regarding the integrity of the distribution systems were identified. The land use plan identified that new power lines be placed below ground. f. Communication- In discussions with potential service providers a final site design would need to
be submitted for a communications system design and cost estimate to be completed. It is assumed, since this project area is surrounded by existing development communications service
will be available. 3. Growth – The North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan used a 20-year plan for phasing in
development over four phases. Sewer and water mains will be appropriately sized to serve the entire
project area. Refer to Section 3 #A above for additional Census data. 4. Unresolved Opportunities–
a. Vehicular, pedestrian and multi-user- An unresolved opportunity connected to this project
would be a further detailed engineering analysis of the proposed bridge and related street
improvements connecting E. Baxter Ln. and Mandeville Ln. b. Stormwater – There are no unresolved opportunities for this project. Stormwater improvements
will be designed according to the four phase development plan.
c. Water- There are no unresolved opportunities for this project. Water system improvements will
be designed according to the four phase development plan. The system improvements will account for both the domestic and fire flows required for the development.
d. Sanitary – There are no unresolved opportunities for this project. Sanitary sewer improvements
will be designed according to the four phase development plan.
e. Power, Gas, & Communication– There are no unresolved opportunities for this project.
D. General Design Requirements for Improvements
1. North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan – This document provides a conceptual layout of the
proposed land uses for the property. The document will be used for the sizing of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems.
2. Governing Design Documents and Standards- the following documents and standards provide
design guidance and requirements for addressing the unresolved opportunities within the project area.
a. City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy – regulates the design of public infrastructure within the City’s limits. The document provides guidance on roadway, water
distribution, sanitary sewer, and storm sewers.
b. City of Bozeman Modifications to the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) 6th Edition- This document addresses those specific requirements which the City of
Bozeman has pertaining to Public Works projects which are not addressed in the MPWSS. All public works projects for the City of Bozeman shall be done in accordance with the MPWSS and City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS.
c. Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) - Montana Contractors Association,
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3 – Problem Definition
3-6
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\003_CHAPTER 3.docx 2013-10-02
2010. This document provides standard specifications and details for public works projects within
the State of Montana. These specifications and details may be modified according to the requirements of the local jurisdiction as applicable.
d. MT Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) – regulates the installation and operation of public
infrastructure such as water, sanitary, and stormwater facilities. The DEQ design criteria that specifically addresses the issues of the project area include Circular DEQ 1, Design Standards for
Water Works, specifically as related to transmission and distribution, Circular DEQ 2, Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities, specifically as related to existing flows, design flows and
hydraulic loading of the collection system. Regarding stormwater facilities, the project area is within an MS4 designated area.
e. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction 2006 Edition- MT Dept. of
Transportation, including supplement(s). This document provides standard specifications and details for road and bridge projects within the State of Montana for MDT projects. This document
will be utilized for design of intersections at US Hwy 10 and 7th Avenue.
f. Montana Rail Link (MRL) – oversees any pipe, road, or other types of crossings of their rail systems. Both pipeline and road crossing applications are required to be submitted through their
real estate department. At least six months should be planned for MRL to process the application.
g. Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC: General Encroachment Guidelines for Property Developers and Land Owners near Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC’s Pipelines and Facilities – This document
provides standard design guidelines for any crossings of the Yellowstone Pipeline or encroachment of pipeline easements.
3. Project Specific Requirements- the Bozeman Solvent Site Controlled Groundwater Area (CGWA) will
need to be taken into account. Restrictions and conditions of use have been placed on groundwater within the boundary of the CGWA. The restrictions associated with the CGWA are an Activity and Use
Limitation enacted to ensure that there is no health threat due to impacted groundwater from the Bozeman Solvent Site and that there are no actions taken that would negatively impact ongoing
remediation and control of the groundwater plume from that site. Any drilling and installation of wells within the boundary of the CGWA is prohibited without first receiving a permit from the DNRC.
END OF CHAPTER 3
4-1
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT & ANALYSIS
A. Land Use Option Development Process
In the development of the North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan, seven items were considered necessary for each option. The following is a list of the items developed:
• An overpass on Interstate 90 providing access into the site
• Expanded access on North 7th Street
• Continued use and improvement of the MRL crossing location on the northernmost portion of the property
• Creation of a rail sliding along the existing MRL line with addition of a second rail spur
• Buffering of the existing Mandeville Creek
• Light Industrial use bordering the railroad
• Commercial land bordering the interstate
Through a series of meetings and workshops Land Use Options A, B, and E were ruled out as viable options fitting
the vision, needs, and goals of the North Park Properties. Options C was considered as an alternate plan and Option D was considered as the preferred land use. The five different land use options are described below. Please
refer to the “North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan” for further details. See Appendix A.
1. Land Use Option A – This option maintains the focus of having commercial use bordering I-90, industrial use bordering the railroad, and a corridor for Mandeville Creek. Recreational use is a focus
on the southeast quarter of the project area, east of Mandeville Creek. The infrastructure improvements required by this option are:
a. Re-alignment of Red Wing Drive through the project area b. Extension of Mandeville Lane to the west towards I-90
c. Interior road network improvements d. Intersection and rail crossing Improvements
e. Domestic Water Distribution Improvements f. Sanitary Collection System Improvements
g. Stormwater Improvements h. Overpass connecting Mandeville Lane and Baxter Ln
i. Power and communications
2. Land Use Option B – This option like Option A maintains the focus having commercial use border I-90 and industrial use border the railroad, along with a corridor for Mandeville Creek. Office use is more of
a focus on the southeast quarter of the project area, where Option A had more of a recreational use. The infrastructure improvements required by this option are:
a. Re-alignment of Red Wing Drive through the project area b. Interior road network with main north-south transportation route between I-90 and
Mandeville Lane. c. Intersection and rail crossing Improvements
d. Domestic Water Distribution Improvements e. Sanitary Collection System Improvements
f. Stormwater Improvements g. Overpass connecting a future street within the project area to Boot Hill Ct on the west side
of I-90 h. Power and communications
3. Land Use Option C – This option splits up and combines land uses along I-90 and the railroad. The
focuses on providing commercial and business park along I-90 and industrial and business park along the railroad, with office and recreation being the focus in the southeast portion of the project. The
infrastructure improvements required by this option are: a. Re-alignment of Red Wing Drive through the project area
b. Interior road network with main north-south transportation route between I-90 and Mandeville Lane.
c. Intersection and rail crossing Improvements d. Domestic Water Distribution Improvements
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4 – Alternative Analysis
4-2
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\004_CHAPTER 4.docx 2013-10-02
e. Sanitary Collection System Improvements
f. Stormwater Improvements g. Overpass connecting re-aligned Red Wing Drive to Dead Mans Gulch on the west side of I-
90 h. Power and communications
4. Land Use Option D – This option focuses on providing commercial and recreational uses along I-90
and industrial and manufacturing along the railroad. A tech and office based land use is the focus in the center and southeastern portions of the project area. The infrastructure improvements required by this
option are: a. Re-alignment of Red Wing Drive straight west through the project area
b. Interior road network with a main north-south transportation route between I-90 and Mandeville Lane.
c. Two improved access points off of 7th Avenue d. Intersection and rail crossing Improvements
e. Domestic Water Distribution Improvements f. Sanitary Collection System Improvements
g. Stormwater Improvements h. Overpass connecting Mandeville Lane and Baxter Ln
i. Power and communications
5. Land Use Option E – This option focuses on providing a mixture of uses along I-90 with uses ranging from commercial, recreational, and office. The use along the railroad is primarily industrial and
manufacturing with center portion being primarily tech and business park. The infrastructure improvements required by this option are:
a. Re-alignment of Red Wing Drive b. Interior road network.
c. Intersection and rail crossing Improvements d. Domestic Water Distribution Improvements
e. Sanitary Collection System Improvements f. Stormwater Improvements
g. Overpass connecting Mandeville Lane and Baxter Ln h. Power and communications
B. Alternative Screening Process for Land Use Option D
This alternative screening process focuses on the infrastructure alternatives for Land Use Option D. Land Use Option D was the preferred land use option in the North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan by the City of
Bozeman and DNRC. It should be noted all of the different land use options stated above all require the same types of infrastructure improvements.
Water Distribution System:
No Action – In order to meet the purpose and need of the North Park Properties land use plan in how the land is used and what infrastructure improvements are required alternatives must be addressed. Accomplishing the goal of
the North Park Properties land use plan is impossible with a no action alternative. This alternative is not suitable for further consideration and will not be included in the alternative analysis process.
Option A: Connect into City of Bozeman existing water system and install new ductile iron water mains within
proposed project area. Both domestic and fire flows will be provided. The existing 12” main running north-south in the project area, the existing 12” main running parallel to HWY 10, and the existing 8” main in Flora Ln. are the proposed points of connection. Separate domestic and fire services will be required for each parcel. This option
would require a bore and jack under the railroad and HWY 10.
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4 – Alternative Analysis
4-3
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\004_CHAPTER 4.docx 2013-10-02
Sanitary Collection System:
No Action – In order to meet the purpose and need of the North Park Properties land use plan in how the land is used and what infrastructure improvements are required alternatives must be addressed. Accomplishing the goal of
the North Park Properties land use plan is impossible with a no action alternative. This alternative is not suitable for further consideration and will not be included in the alternative analysis process.
Option A: Connect into City of Bozeman sanitary collection system via installing new sanitary sewer mains within
proposed project area and convey flows via gravity flow to an existing Reeves Road and HWY 10 manhole. This option would require a bore and jack under the railroad and HWY 10. Other connections to the existing 10” sanitary
sewer main will be required to serve portions of the eastern project area. In connection with the sewer improvements, an all-weather 12 feet wide access road over the existing water and sewer lines within the project
area will be required.
Option B: Connect into City of Bozeman sanitary collection system and install a combination of new sanitary sewer gravity mains and along with a lift station and force mains to service the entire site. The lift station and force main
could ultimately convey flows into the existing sewer main running north-south through the development. The lift station is in lieu of connecting the new sewer main into Reeves Road/HWY 10 manhole. In connection with the
sewer improvements, an all-weather 12 feet wide access road over the existing water and sewer lines within the project area will be required.
Further consideration on this alternative will not be included as Option A is the City preferred option. Option A is also the most cost effective solution for conveying sewage from the project area when comparing construction costs and yearly operation and maintenance costs for a lift station versus the costs for a jack and bore under MRL
railroad and HWY 10.
Stormwater Improvements:
No Action – In order to meet the purpose and need of the North Park Properties land use plan in how the land is used and what infrastructure improvements are required alternatives must be addressed. Accomplishing the goal of
the North Park Properties land use plan is impossible with a no action alternative. This alternative is not suitable for further consideration and will not be included in the alternative analysis process. Option A: Install storm sewer system within roadways per City of Bozeman standards and provide services to
parcels. Storm sewer system would ultimately convey flows to regional detention ponds located on the north end of the project near Mandeville Creek.
Power, Gas, and Communications Improvements:
No Action – In order to meet the purpose and need of the North Park Properties land use plan in how the land is
used and what infrastructure improvements are required alternatives must be addressed. Accomplishing the goal of the North Park Properties land use plan is impossible with a no action alternative. This alternative is not suitable for further consideration and will not be included in the alternative analysis process.
Option A: Install power and communications improvements underground according to the criteria set forth in the North Park Properties Land Use Plan. An existing natural gas transmission line runs through the site. Three-phase
power is available near Flora Lane, Mandeville, and Reeves Road.
Transportation Improvements:
As Land Use Option D is phased in, major transportation improvements will be required. Improvements indicated in the land use plan include: new interior roads within the project area, intersection improvements, pedestrian facility improvements, and a new overpass connecting Mandeville Lane and E. Baxter Ln. In regards to the new overpass
and related street improvements, further analysis will not be included as it is out of the scope of this report.
No Action – In order to meet the purpose and need of the North Park Properties land use plan in how the land is
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4 – Alternative Analysis
4-4
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\004_CHAPTER 4.docx 2013-10-02
used and what infrastructure improvements are required alternatives must be addressed. Accomplishing the goal of
the North Park Properties land use plan is impossible with a no action alternative. This alternative is not suitable for further consideration and will not be included in the alternative analysis process.
Option A: Install transportation improvements according to the intent of the North Park Properties land use plan.
Transportation improvements would be installed per any requirements set forth in traffic studies and per City and MDT requirements.
C. Alternative Analysis
1. Water Distribution System
a. Option A i. This City preferred system layout consists of connecting into the City of Bozeman water
distribution system. New water lines would be installed within the new roadways proposed for the project area and connect into the existing north-south 12” line and the 12” line on
the north side of HWY 10 providing for a looped system. Besides water mains, gate valves and hydrants would be installed at City specified intervals. Pressure relief valves would
also be required. This option requires a jack and bore for the MRL and MDT crossings. b. Schematic Layouts – See UTL2 for the proposed water layout.
c. Operation Requirements – The City of Bozeman typically flushes water mains every two years and flows and tests hydrants every three years.
d. Energy Requirements - There are no energy requirements specific to these alternatives. e. Regulatory Requirements - The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulates
both public water and sanitary systems in Montana. Circular DEQ-1 requires a minimum 6” diameter water main and recommends 8” in most circumstances. The proposed alternative will
meet this minimum requirement and where applicable, the transmission size will be larger to accommodate service and fire flow requirements.
f. Land Requirements – New water improvements would be within dedicated right-of-ways. g. Environmental Considerations – Considerations will be required for any crossings under
Mandeville Creek. Any crossing would require a 404 permit. Considerations will also be required for the Bozeman Solvent Site Controlled Ground Water Area. Restrictions are in place and any new
drilling or well installation would require approval and permitting (See Appendix B). h. Construction Considerations – Considerations will be required for Mandeville Creek crossings,
crossings of MRL property and MDT right-of-way, Yellowstone Pipeline crossings, and Nothwestern Energy gas line crossings. Standard considerations for the construction of this
alternative include storm water pollution prevention, temporary access, and traffic detours. i. Cost estimates –
Table 4-1 (Phase I & II)
Water Distribution - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total 1,503,415$
Admin & Contingency (20%)300,683$
Construction Cost (2014)1,804,098$
Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)2,029,430$
Engineering Services (15%)304,414$
Alternative Estimate 2,333,844$
Annual Operation Expenditures 2,980$
20 Year Present Worth Analysis 2,374,343$
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4 – Alternative Analysis
4-5
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\004_CHAPTER 4.docx 2013-10-02
2. Sanitary Collection System
a. Option A i. This City preferred option consists of connecting into the City of Bozeman sanitary
collection system by installing new sanitary sewer mains within the new roadways proposed for the development. Flows from the project area would ultimately be conveyed
to a manhole located in the vicinity of the Reeves Road and HWY 10 intersection. This option would require a jack and bore for the MRL and MDT crossings.
b. Schematic Layouts – See UTL2 for the proposed sewer layout. c. Operation Requirements – The City of Bozeman typically schedules routine jetting for gravity
sanitary mains at 2 year intervals. d. Energy Requirements – There are no energy requirements specific to these alternatives.
e. Regulatory Requirements - Circular DEQ-2 requires a minimum diameter of 6’ for gravity sewer mains and the proposed alternatives will meet or exceed this requirement.
f. Land Requirements – New sewer improvements would be within dedicated right-of-ways. g. Environmental Considerations - Considerations will be required for any crossings under
Mandeville Creek. Any crossing would require a 404 permit. h. Construction Considerations – Considerations will be required for Mandeville Creek crossings,
crossings of MRL property and MDT right-of-way, Yellowstone Pipeline crossings, and Nothwestern Energy gas line crossings. Standard considerations for the construction of this
alternative include storm water pollution prevention, temporary access, and traffic detours. i. Cost Estimates –
Table 4-2 (Phase I & II)
3. Stormwater Improvements
a. Option A i. This option consists of installing a storm sewer system network within new roadways
proposed for the development. Storm sewer system would ultimately convey flows to regional detention ponds on the north end of the project near Mandeville Creek. Other
detention pond areas may be necessary depending how the properties are built out. b. Schematic Layouts – refer to UTL3 and UTL3B for layouts
c. Operation Requirements - Generally detention ponds require yearly maintenance consisting of lawn care and removal of sediments. The City maintains maintenance and cleaning schedule for
City storm inlets, manholes, and piping. d. Energy Requirements - There are no energy requirements specific to these alternatives.
e. Regulatory Requirements – City of Bozeman stormwater design standards regulate storm sewer systems and detention ponds
f. Land Requirements – New stormwater improvements would be within dedicated right-of-ways and stormwater drainage easements.
g. Environmental Considerations – Considerations will be required for any crossings under Mandeville Creek. Consideration will also be required for how stormwater is discharged into the
creek corridor. h. Construction Considerations – Considerations will be required for Mandeville Creek crossings
and crossings of MRL property and MDT right-of-way. Standard considerations for the construction of this alternative include storm water pollution prevention, temporary access, and traffic detours.
Sanitary Collection - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total 1,065,030$
Admin & Contingency (20%)213,006$
Construction Cost (2014)1,278,036$
Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)1,437,663$
Engineering Services (15%)215,649$
Alternative Estimate 1,653,312$
Annual Operation Expenditures 2,000$
20 Year Present Worth Analysis 1,680,493$
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4 – Alternative Analysis
4-6
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\004_CHAPTER 4.docx 2013-10-02
Additionally, temporary service will be required during construction.
i. Cost estimates –
Table 4-3 (Phase I & II)
4. Transportation and Pedestrian Facility Improvements a. Option A
i. This option generally follows the plans set forth in the land use plan. b. Schematic Layout – Refer to EXH2 and EXH3
c. Operation Requirements – There would be no significant impact to operational requirements. d. Energy Requirements – There are no energy requirements specific to these alternatives.
e. Regulatory Compliance and Permits – City of Bozeman and MDT design standards regulate street and pedestrian facility improvements.
f. Land Requirements – Improvements would be within existing and new City of Bozeman right-of-way.
g. Environmental Considerations – Considerations will be required for any crossings over Mandeville Creek. Consideration will also be required for how stormwater is discharged into the
creek corridor. h. Construction Considerations – Considerations will be required for Mandeville Creek crossings,
and crossings of MRL property, Yellowstone Pipeline crossings, and Nothwestern Energy gas line crossings. Standard considerations for the construction of this alternative include storm water
pollution prevention, temporary access, and traffic detours. i. Cost Estimates – Please note: the following estimate does not include costs for the overpass and
related street improvements as they are out of the scope of this report.
Table 4-4 (Phase I & II)
5. Power, Gas, and Communications-
a. Option A i. Relocation Below Ground- This option would relocate the existing above ground
distribution lines and associated poles, and relocate the distribution lines below ground. b. Schematic Layout- Refer to UTL1 for the existing power, gas, and communications layout.
c. Operational Requirements- There would be no significant impact to operational requirements.
Storm Water- Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total 1,622,855.00$
Admin & Contingency (20%)324,571.00$
Construction Cost (2014)1,947,426.00$
Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)2,190,659.51$
Engineering Services (15%)328,598.93$
Alternative Estimate 2,519,258.43$
Annual Operation Expenditures 1,200$
20 Year Present Worth Analysis 2,535,566.79$
Transportation - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total 3,952,563.00$
Admin & Contingency (20%)790,512.60$
Construction Cost (2014)4,743,075.60$
Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)5,335,485.74$
Engineering Services (15%)800,322.86$
Alternative Estimate 6,135,808.60$
Annual Operation Expenditures 3,000.00$
20 Year Present Worth Analysis 6,176,579.50$
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Project Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4 – Alternative Analysis
4-7
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\004_CHAPTER 4.docx 2013-10-02
d. Energy Requirements- There would be no significant impact to energy consumption with the
implementation of the power and communication alternatives. e. Regulatory Compliance and Permits- Any modification to the existing power and communication
infrastructure is governed by state and federal regulations specific to the service provided. f. Land Requirements- Power, gas, and communications improvements would be within dedicated
utility easements. g. Environmental Considerations- Considerations will be required for any crossings under
Mandeville Creek. A 404 permit will be required. h. Construction Considerations - Considerations will be required for Mandeville Creek crossings
and crossings of MRL property and MDT right-of-way. Standard considerations for the construction of this alternative include storm water pollution prevention, temporary access, and traffic detours.
i. Cost Estimates–
Table 4-5 (Phase I & II)
D. Selection of a Preferred Alternative-
The preferred alternatives described above take into account technical feasibility, environmental impacts, financial feasibility, public health and safety, operational and maintenance considerations, and public comments. The
selected alternatives are in-line with the land use plan for the project area and City preferences.
END CHAPTER 4
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total 1,250,000$
Admin & Contingency (20%)250,000$
Construction Cost (2014)1,500,000$
Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)1,687,350$
Engineering Services (15%)253,103$
Alternative Estimate 1,940,453$
Annual Operation Expenditures 400$
20 Year Present Worth Analysis 1,945,889$
5-1
CHAPTER 5
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
A. Site location and Characteristics.
New sanitary sewer and domestic water mains are planned for implementation and will be located within
City dedicated right of way as shown on exhibit UTL2. Preliminary plan and profiles have been completed
for water and sewer mains as shown on C100 – C311.
New stormwater improvements are planned for implementation and will be located within City dedicated
right of way and easements as shown on exhibit UTL3 and UTL3B.
New power and communications improvements are planned for implementation within new dedicated
easements as shown on exhibit UTL2.
New transportation improvements are planned for implementation within new and existing right-of-way as
shown on EXH2.
B. Operational Requirements. The new transportation, water, sewer, and storm sewer mains will not require
any new areas of expertise. The City will be able to utilize their existing operation and maintenance plans
for the new utilities.
Power and Communications systems operation and maintenance will continue to be performed by
Northwestern Energy, Charter, and Century Link. The proposed improvements may require additional
areas of expertise to operate and maintain beyond the services currently provided by these service
providers.
C. Impact on existing facilities. The City has provided a will serve letter stating adequate capacity exists in
the City’s sewer collection system and adequate pressure and capacity exist in the City’s water distribution
system to provide service to the project area. See Appendix for City will serve letter. New storm sewer
improvements will not impact City facilities. Existing traffic facilities will be improved as required by MDT
and the City of Bozeman.
D. Design criteria.
Water Distribution System – Option A Water Supply: The City of Bozeman has historically relied on water from its Hyalite and Sourdough source
for 90 percent of its supply. The City’s other supply source is the Lyman Creek system.
Treatment: The City of Bozeman uses the Hyalite/Sourdough water treatment plant (WWTP), which uses a
direct filtration process.
Storage: The City of Bozeman stores treated surface water in four separate reservoirs. The four storage
reservoirs have a combined capacity of 12.1 MG.
Pumping Stations: The City of Bozeman currently serves customers with a gravity supplied system. One
booster station is active in the City’s system which is capable of pumping form the North to the South
pressure zones; however, operation of this booster station is not necessary for water distribution.
Distribution Layout: New distribution mains will be located within right-of-way dedicated to the City.
Distribution main located within “Primary Road #1” will be 12” Ductile Iron and mains located within
“Secondary Roads #2 and #3” will be 10” Ductile Iron. The Flora Ln. extension would be 8” Ductile Iron.
Refer to UTL2 for proposed layout.
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5 – Preferred Alternatives
5-2
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\005_CHAPTER 5.docx 2013-10-02
Flow Requirements: According to MDEQ Water Quality, Circular 1, the minimum allowable working
pressure in the system is 35 psi, and the minimum pressure in the system during fire flow is 20 psi.
According to City of Bozeman Design Standards 6th Edition, the water system shall be designed to meet
the maximum demand plus fire flow and and the peak hour demand. The design shall be based on a
maximum hour to average day ratio of 3:1 (maximum day to average day ratio of 2.3:1 for an average daily
usage of 170 gallons per day per person), plus fire flow demand. A “C” Factor of 130 shall be used in
modeling system designs. The working residual pressure shall not be less than 20 psi at any point in the
distribution system under maximum day plus fire flow. The velocity of the water in the system shall not
exceed 15 feet per second through a public main. The minimum diameter for any new main is 8-inch.
Domestic and Fire Flow Demands: For this analysis, a fire flow of 2,000 gpm and an average daily flow
for the project area of 217 gpm is assumed. The water mains must be able to provide this combined fire
and peak domestic flow with a minimum residual pressure as described in MDEQ Water Quality Division,
Circular 1.
Fire Flow Test Data: The City of Bozeman conducted fire flow tests on August 20, 2013 in the vicinity of
the project area to measure static pressures. Based on this information, a static pressure of 126 psi is
available near the intersection of Reeves Rd and Highway 10 (northwest end of project) and 120 psi is
available near the intersection of Mandeville Lane and Wheat Drive (south end of project). See Appendix I
for fire flow test data.
Hydraulic Calculations and Modeling: Using EPANET 2, a water modeling software program, and fire
flow test data, a preliminary model was set-up to analyze system pressures, velocities, and flows. The
model simulated a worst case scenario using a combined peak flow and fire flow of 3,000 gpm at Junction
38 (southern portion of site) and a typical fire flow of 2,000 gpm at Junction 37 (see Junction Map in
Appendix I). Under these flow conditions, approximate residual pressures between 72 psi and 98 psi are
available within the planning area. Pipe velocities do not exceed 15 feet per second. See Appendix I for
hydraulic modeling data.
Fire Hydrants, Valves, and Meters: Fire hydrants will be installed along new mains starting at the
connections to the existing 12” mains, as required by the City of Bozeman and the MDEQ. New water
valves will be located on the new water mains at tees and every 500 feet as required by the City of
Bozeman. The City of Bozeman utilizes radio read meters to register usage by customers and generate
revenue.
It should be noted there is an existing pressure reducing valve on the north end of the water line going
through the project, before the railroad and Highway 10 crossing. Due to the pressures in the existing 12”
main going through the site it is expected new pressure reducing valves will be required on the new mains.
Sanitary Collection System – Option A
Treatment: Sewage generated by the new development would be treated at the City’s wastewater
treatment facility. The City has provided a will serve letter stating the WWTP has the capacity to treat the
flows from the development. The WWTP is located approximately 3,160 feet downstream of the existing
Reeves Road-Highway 10 manhole.
Pumping Stations: No lift stations are proposed in Option A.
Collection System Layout: The new collection system is divided into two sub-basins. Sewage generated
by the “east” sub-basin will be collected by various 8” extensions off of the existing 10” main and will
ultimately be conveyed by the existing parallel 20” sewer mains. Sewage generated by the “west” sub-
basin will ultimately be collected at the Reeves Road and Highway 10 manhole via new sewer mains in City
right-of-way. Refer to UTL2 for proposed layout.
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5 – Preferred Alternatives
5-3
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\005_CHAPTER 5.docx 2013-10-02
Ultimately, all sewage generated by the planning area will be conveyed by a 20” AC sewer at a 0.8% slope
to the WWTP. The 20” main eventually turns into a 30” main before entering the plant.
Design Flows and Requirements:
Using Table V-1 (Wastewater Flow Rate For Zoned Undeveloped Areas), which can be found in Appendix
H, from the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy 6th Edition, the average daily
demands are estimated in the following table:
Table 5-1
Proposed Land Use
Gross
Acres Gal/Acre/Day Gal/Day
Tech 34.6 960 33216
Office 12.0 960 11520
Light Industrial 51.9 960 49824
Manufacturing 29.2 960 28032
Commercial 47.2 3000 141600
Hotel 7.0 3000 21000
Recreation 26.9 1000 26900
TOTAL= 312092
The proposed land uses for the development in total would generate a total average daily flow of approximately 312,092 gallons per day (gpd) or 217 gpm. Using a peaking factor of 4.5, the development would generate a peak hourly flow of approximately 977 gpm. When analyzing the development as two separate sub-basins (see UTL2B), east and west, the average day flows are as follows: Table 5-2
"West" Sub-basin
Proposed Land Use Gross Acres Gal/Acre/Day Gal/Day
Tech 34.6 960 33216
Light Industrial 25.5 960 24480
Commercial 47.2 3000 141600
Hotel 7.1 3000 21300
Recreation 26.9 1000 26900
TOTAL= 247496
The “West” sub-basin would generate an average day flow of approximately 172 gpm. Using a peaking
factor of 4.5, the “West” sub-basin would generate a peak hourly flow of approximately 774 gpm.
Table 5-3
"East" Sub-basin
Proposed Land Use Gross Acres Gal/Acre/Day Gal/Day
Office 12 960 11520
Light Industrial 26.4 960 25344
Manufacturing 29.2 960 28032
TOTAL= 64896
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5 – Preferred Alternatives
5-4
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\005_CHAPTER 5.docx 2013-10-02
The “East” sub-basin would generate an average day flow of approximately 45 gpm. Using a peaking factor
of 4.5, the “East” sub-basin would generate a peak hourly flow of approximately 203 gpm.
Hydraulic Calculations:
The City requires new sewer lines to be sized to flow at no more than 75% full capacity at peak hour
conditions upon the full build-out of the development. See Appendix H for hydraulic data and a cumulated
flows table.
The existing 20” AC sewer main (downstream of the Reeves Rd/HWY 10 manhole), at a slope of 0.8%, a
Manning’s friction factor of 0.013, flowing at ¾ full can accommodate up to 5,120 gallons per minute (gpm)
resulting in a velocity of 6.47 feet per second (fps). The City has provided a will serve letter stating the
sewer collection system has the capacity to serve the proposed development.
The proposed 12” PVC sewer main (Segment 5), at a slope of 0.4%, a Manning’s friction factor of 0.013,
flowing at ¾ full can accommodate up to 922 gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in a velocity of 3.25 feet
per second (fps). The required design flow for this segment is 774 gpm. At a minimum slope of 0.22%,
flowing ¾ full, 12” PVC can accommodate up to 684 gpm.
The proposed 10” PVC sewer main (Segment 3), at a slope of 0.4%, a Manning’s friction factor of 0.013,
flowing at ¾ full can accommodate up to 564 gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in a velocity of 2.87 feet
per second (fps). Approximately, 555 gpm will be conveyed by this segment. At a minimum slope of
0.28%, flowing ¾ full, 10” PVC can accommodate up to 477 gpm.
The proposed 8” PVC sewer main (Segments 1,2 and 4), at a minimum slope of 0.4%, a Manning’s friction
factor of 0.013, flowing at ¾ full can accommodate up to 317 gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in a
velocity of 2.49 feet per second (fps). Approximately, 294 gpm will be conveyed by Segment 3, 46 gpm by
Segment 2, and 58 by Segment 1.
Stormwater System – Option A
Collection System Layout: In general, stormwater piping will be located within street right-of-ways and
dedicated stormwater easements. There are two collection systems located within the project area, a north
and a south drainage, with Mandeville Creek being the dividing/basin boundary. A portion of the property
adjacent to Manderville Creek will remain undeveloped due to its existing gradient and proximity to the
creek. Exhibit UTL3B shows the two basin delineations for the project area. Each collection system will
convey runoff from roadways and parcels, which will be connected via service connections, to one of two
regional detention ponds.
Detention Ponds/Storage: Two detention ponds are proposed for the site (see UTL3), one for the
northern drainage area and one for the southern drainage. Ponds are sized according to the City of
Bozeman drainage criteria. A manufacturing land use, which has a runoff coefficient of 0.8, is assumed for
runoff rate and volume calculations. The ponds are conceptually sized to store the difference of the post-
development runoff from the pre-development runoff during a 100-year storm event.
Treatment: Detention ponds will be sized a minimum basin area of 145 square feet per 1 cfs release rate
for sediment control. No mechanical forms of treatment are being proposed.
Hydraulic Calculations: The City requires storm sewer facilities be designed to convey a 25-year storm
event. See Appendix F for hydraulic data. Pipes up to 36” in diameter are proposed as PVC, while pipes
larger than 36” in diameter are proposed as RCP with all manholes, inlets and mains having been
conceptually designed per the City of Bozeman design standards.
The proposed conveyance system associated with the northern drainage basin is comprised of 15” through
42” storm sewer mains for conveyance of the runoff to the northern detention pond. A total area of 138.8
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5 – Preferred Alternatives
5-5
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\005_CHAPTER 5.docx 2013-10-02
acres are designed to flow to the pond with a design flow of 114 cfs calculated at the systems outfall to the
pond.
The proposed conveyance system associated with the southern drainage basin is comprised of 15” through
48” storm sewer mains for conveyance of the runoff to the southern detention pond. A total area of 110.3
acres are designed to flow to the southern detention pond with a design flow of 132.6 cfs calculated at the
systems outfall to the pond.
Portions of the runoff from the developed parcels will require on-site conveyance systems in order to
convey the flows from the rear portions of the lots to the regional pond(s). This will primarily be required for
the northwestern portions of the light industrial parcels adjacent to the railroad tracks, as well as for
portions of the recreational parcels along the west end of the project
Three smaller detention ponds, each located near one of the three proposed roadway crossings of
Mandeville Creek within the undeveloped zones, will be required in order to provide detention for those low
areas. All detention ponds will release via outfall structures directly to Mandeville Creek
Transportation and Pedestrian Facilities – Option A
The main focus of this report has been to discuss the proposed water, sewer, and storm facilities for the
project area. However, to be able to provide an overall look at project costs and other related improvement
costs it is necessary to briefly discuss transportation and pedestrian facilities.
In general, new roads within the proposed project area, at a minimum, will be designed and built according
to City of Bozeman specifications and design standards. The proposed layout assumes Primary Road #1 to
be a minor arterial street, being the major transportation route through the project area. Secondary Road
#2 and Secondary Road #3 are assumed to be collector streets, along with the extension of Flora Lane.
The interior roads within the project area, associated intersection improvements, and rail crossings will be
built in two phases along with the water, sewer, and storm facilities. It is assumed the proposed overpass
and related improvements to Mandeville Ln. and E. Baxter Ln. would be built in a separate phase.
Power, Gas, and Communication Facilities – Option A
The main focus of this report has been to discuss the proposed water, sewer, and storm facilities for the
project area. However, to provide an overall look at project costs an estimate has been provided below in
Section F.
E. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation. The Uniform Environmental Checklist is presented in Appendix
B along with the relevant environmental information. Environmental impacts and mitigation efforts to consider are: Bozeman Solvent Site CGWA, Mandeville Creek crossings (ie. 404 permit) and wetland
restoration, Yellowstone Pipeline crossings, and Northwestern Energy gas main crossings.
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5 – Preferred Alternatives
5-6
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\005_CHAPTER 5.docx 2013-10-02
F. Cost Summary for the Preferred Alternatives.
1. Project Cost Estimate –
Table 5-4
2. Annual Operating Budget
a. Income – According to the data provided in Appendix G, income should be expected to increase as the number of users increase for the 20 year planning period.
b. O&M Costs – The operation and maintenance costs for City water, sewer, and storm
facilities are presented in Appendix G. c. Debt Repayments and Coverage Requirements – As stated in Chapter 3, Section B-4, all
City debt reserve requirements are met. See Appendix G for details regarding debt service payments for water and sewer facilities. 3. Reserves – See Appendix G
END CHAPTER 5
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Estimate Total
Water Distribution - Improvements 1 LS 2,333,844.32$ 2,334,000.00$
Sanitary Collection - Improvements 1 LS 1,653,312.10$ 1,654,000.00$
Storm Water- Improvements 1 LS 2,519,258.43$ 2,520,000.00$
Transportation - Improvements 1 LS 6,135,808.60$ 6,136,000.00$
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements 1 LS 1,940,452.50$ 1,941,000.00$
Project Total 14,582,675.95$ 14,583,000.00$
Costs included in Project Total Above Quantity Unit Construction Inflation
Engineering
Services
Water Distribution - Improvements 1 LS 1,804,098.00$ 147,214.40$ 292,696.86$
Sanitary Collection - Improvements 1 LS 1,278,036.00$ 104,287.74$ 207,348.56$
Storm Water- Improvements 1 LS 1,947,426.00$ 158,909.96$ 315,950.39$
Transportation - Improvements 1 LS 4,743,075.60$ 387,034.97$ 769,516.59$
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements 1 LS 1,687,350.00$ 137,687.76$ 273,755.66$
11,459,985.60$ 935,134.82$ 1,859,268.06$
Note: Construction Cost includes 20% Admin & Contingency for each Alternative
Operation Expenditures
Water Distribution - Improvements 1 YR 2,980.00$ 2,980.00$
Sanitary Collection - Improvements 1 YR 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Storm Water- Improvements 1 YR 400.00$ 400.00$
Transportation - Improvements 1 YR 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements 1 YR 400.00$ 400.00$
Subtotal 8,780.00$
Factor F Value O&M PW Alt PW Total
20 Year Present Worth Analysis (P/A,4,20)13.5903 119,322.83$ 14,702,322.83$
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PROBABLE OPINION OF COST SUMMARY
6-1
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Funding Strategy.
It is anticipated that a local match will be required to secure any grant(s). The funding strategy for operation and maintenance of the preferred alternatives was identified in Chapter 4.
Sources of the funding alternatives that may be suitable for portions of this project include but are not
limited to:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The CDBG funds are potential funding sources for
some portions of this project. The CDBG is divided into three basic categories: 1. Economic
Development, 2. Housing and Neighborhood Renewal, and 3. Public Facilities. The CDBG provides
grants to local governments up to $450,000. For the public facilties category, local governments must
provide a match of at least 25% of the CDBG funds requested (not 25% of the total project cost).
Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP): This program can provide up to $500,000 as a 1:1 match
for water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure aspects of this project. Funding for this program is
determined through an established system of ranking, recommendation, and award between the
Department of Commerce, the Governor’s office and the Legislature. The legislative session starts
January 2015. Construction Project grant opportunities will not be accepted until spring 2015.
Big Sky Trust Fund (BSTF): The Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund (BSTF) program is a
state-funded program created by the 2005 Legislature. It is designed to aid in the development of good
paying jobs for Montana residents and promote long-term stable economic growth in Montana. The
BSTF program is designed to provide financial assistance in the following two categories: 1. Economic
Job Creation Projects and 2. Planning Projects.
INTERCAP Program: This Montana Board of Investment program low interest loan is an available
option for funding and has a term of 15 years. The maximum loan amount per project depends on the
legal debt authority of the county.
Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program: The RRGL program funds may be available for use for
some infrastructure related portions of this project.
Table 6-1 – Funding Example Costs
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PROBABLE OPINION OF COST SUMMARY & LOCAL FUNDING EXAMPLE
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Total Local Cost / 25% Match Requirement
Water Distribution - Improvements 1 LS $ 2,333,844.32 $ 583,461.08
Sanitary Collection - Improvements 1 LS $ 1,653,312.10 $ 413,328.03
Storm Water- Improvements 1 LS $ 2,519,258.43 $ 629,814.61
Transportation - Improvements 1 LS $ 6,135,808.60 $ 1,533,952.15
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements 1 LS $ 1,940,452.50 $ 485,113.13
Project Total $ 14,582,675.95 $ 3,645,668.99
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Implementation
6-2
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\006_CHAPTER 6.docx 2013-10-02
B. Implementation and Phasing
The implementation schedule is developed to match the proposed infrastructure improvements to the phasing of development proposed in the land use plan. Infrastructure improvements, which include
water, sewer, storm, and transportation and pedestrian improvements within future dedicated right-of-way, are tentatively planned to be installed in two phases to match the proposed four phases of the
North Park Properties build-out. See EXH3 for a proposed infrastructure phasing plan. It should be noted it is assumed the proposed overpass and related street improvements connecting Mandeville Ln.
and E. Baxter Ln. will be a separate phase of improvements to coincide with phase III of the North Park build out. See land use plan in Appendix A.
The schedule outline shown in table 6-2 is a big picture look at completing Phase I of the infrastructure
improvements. The schedule assumes securing funding early summer of 2015.
Table 6-2 – Phase I Infrastructure Improvements
PROJECT KICKOFF Memorandum of Agreement – Between DNRC & City of Bozeman to collaborate on a land use plan for the combined properties September of 2011
PROJECT FUNDING Final Design Secure by July 1st, 2015
Construction Secure by October 1st, 2015
PROJECT START UP Prepare Preliminary Engineering Rpt. & Environmental Compliance Complete January, 2014
Draft Final PER for Public Comment & Agency Response Complete January, 2014
Final PER for Agency Review Complete March, 2014
Agency Adoption of Environmental Compliance Complete October, 2014
PROJECT DESIGN Dependent on Securing Funding:
Advertise for & Select Engineer Spring/Summer 2015
Commence Final Design Spring/Summer 2015
Complete Project Design Winter 2015-16
Submit Plans for Agency Review Winter 2015-16
Prepare Bid Documents Winter 2015-16
Finalize Acquisition Winter 2015-16
ADVERTISEMENT FOR CONST. BID Dependent on Securing Funding:
Review Contract Requirements Winter 2015-16
Public Bid Announcement Winter 2015-16
Open Bids and Examine Proposals Winter 2015-16
Request Contr. Debarment Review Winter/Spring 2016
Select Contractor & Award Bid Winter/Spring 2016
Conduce Pre-Const. Conference Spring 2016
Issue Notice to Proceed to Contractor Summer 2016
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Dependent on Securing Funding:
Begin Construction Begin June 2016
Monitor Engineer & Contractor Ongoing through Construction
Conduct Labor Compliance Reviews Ongoing through Construction
Hold Const. Progress Meetings Ongoing through Construction
Final Inspection Spring 2017
Bozeman, Montana North Park Properties Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Implementation
6-3
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\006_CHAPTER 6.docx 2013-10-02
PROJECT CLOSE OUT PROJECT CLOSE OUT
Submit Final Drawdown Spring 2017
Determine Audit Requirements Spring 2017
Project Completion Report Spring 2017
Submit Conditional Certification Spring 2017
Submit Final Certification Spring 2017
Implementation Priority- the following list identifies specific tasks or areas of the project by priority in
the event that funding for the entire project is not available and a phased approach based on available funding is needed.
1. Phase I – Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Infrastructure
a. This phase of improvements is intended to facilitate phase I and II of the North Park Properties Land Use Plan
2. Phase II – Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Infrastructure a. This Phase of improvements is intended to facilitate phases III and IV of the North Park
Properties Land Use Plan.
Table 6-3
Construction Phasing Probable Cost Summary
Water Distribution - Improvements Total Phase I Phase II
Construction Item Sub-total $ 1,503,415.00 $ 912,015.00 $ 591,400.00
Sanitary Collection - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total $ 1,065,030.00 $ 889,565.52 $ 763,746.58
Storm Water- Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total $ 1,622,855.00 $ 1,095,160.00 $ 527,695.00
Transportation - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total $ 3,952,563.00 $ 1,976,440.00 $ 1,874,873.00
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements
Construction Item Sub-total $ 1,250,000.00 $ 625,000.00 $ 625,000.00
C. Public Participation. Public meetings were held during the development of this Preliminary Engineering Report. The meeting minutes, written comments, advertisement and presentation
materials are included in Appendix D.
END OF CHAPTER 6
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX A
NORTH PARK PROPERTIES CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN
North Park Properties
Concept Land Use Plan
City of Bozeman, Montana
Department of Natural Resources Conservation
August 2012
Executive Summary
The planning team of CTA Architects Engineers Planners with
MXD Development Strategists, LTD was hired by the City of
Bozeman and Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation to develop a market analysis and feasibility study
for the 275-acre parcel of land known as the North Park Site
in North Bozeman. The project represents a project team
relationship between a state agency and local municipality.
The North Park site is the largest contiguous vacant site in
the City of Bozeman and represents one of if not the best
opportunities for strategically planned growth. Bozeman
and DNRC desire to implement development in a strategic
fashion. The overriding goal is to do it right.
During the course of the development of the North Park Concept
Land Use plan the project team held several public meetings
and brought in diverse groups of individuals and community
leaders to gain input on possible development options, study
transportation access to the site and facilitate discussion on
possible development scenarios. The primary approach to this
project has been to develop a land use plan that is grounded in
reality. The planning effort necessitates sound market planning
and explores in great depth the feasibility of various development
scenarios. In the end the recommendations are market based
and tied to conditions found in the Bozeman area development
market place.
This report will spell out the CTA/MXD approach to the
assessment of the regional marketplace and the process derived
to define a development program grounded in the market.
The project cites case studies and explores various development
options including hotel, retail commercial, light industrial, office
and residential conditions for the North Park site.
Numerous land use options were explored that define potential
circulation routes and locations of various potential land uses.
Ultimately, a preferred option and an alternate option were
developed and a master concept plan and conceptual cost
estimate was prepared for each. A detailed financial analysis was
prepared for the preferred option defining build-out costs and
return rates for the project.
The preferred option defines a 20-30 year project build-out based
on 2012 development rates and includes:
90 Rooms of Hotel
790,000 SF of Light Industrial Space
468,500 SF of Flex Space
72,000 SF of Office Space
(with additional office space integrated into “flex”)
270,000 SF of Retail Space
17 Acres of Recreational Development
that could be temporary land use
The project envisions a central greenway, a railroad siding and
spur line, a major north-south boulevard roadway and a new
east-west route with an overpass at Interstate 90. The preferred
option has a 2012 development price tag of $17.5 Million for
infrastructure, roadway, amenity and engineering costs.
| NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |
PAGE
PREFACE i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Scope of Study 2 1.2 Project Methodology 2
2.0 ECONOMIC & MARKET OVERVIEW 5
2.1 Economy of Montana 6
2.2 Economy of Bozeman 12
3.0 LOCATION & SITE ANALYSIS 15 3.1 Regional Context 16 3.2 Local Context 18 3.3 Land Use Context 27 3.4 Non-Vehicular Transportation Connectivity 29 4.0 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS 30
4.1 Retail Market Overview 31
4.2 Competitive Retail Infrastructure 36
4.3 Retail Trade Area 38
4.4 Retail Demand Quantification 40
5.0 OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS 43
5.1 Office Market Overview 44 5.2 Office Demand Quantification 45 6.0 INDUSTRIAL MARKET ANALYSIS 50
6.1 Industrial Market Overview 51 6.2 Foreign Trade Zones 54 6.3 Industrial Demand Quantification 55
PAGE
7.0 HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS 60 7.1 Hotel Market Overview 61 7.2 Hotel Demand Quantification 63
8.0 RECREATIONAL SECTOR OVERVIEW 68
8.1 Recreational Sector Summary 69
9.0 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 74
9.1 Land Use Development Strategy Overview 75
9.2 North Park Positioning Strategy 75 9.3 North Park Demand & Phasing Summary 77 9.4 Comparison of Market Demand to Development Capacity 78
9.5 North Park Land Use Allocation by Parcel 78
Table of Contents
| NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |
TABLES PAGE
2.1 Top 20 Employers in Gallatin County by Employment Size 7 2.2 Bozeman Top Employers by Employment Numbers 10 2.3 Top 10 Fastest Growing Occupations by Average Annual Growth Rate 11 2.4 Top 10 Fastest Growing Occupations by Total Number of Employed 11 2.5 Bozeman Educational Attainment 13
3.1 North Park Site Development Evaluation Criteria 19 3.2 North Park Site SWOT Analysis 22 4.1 North Park Competitive Retail Inventory 37 4.2 Trade Area Boundary Determinants 38
4.3 Retail Demand Based on Gallatin County as a PTA 41 4.4 Blended Average Market Share Retail Demand for North Park Site based on Gallatin County as a PTA 41
4.5 Retail Demand Based on City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade as a PTA 42 4.6 Blended Average Market Share Retail Demand for North Park
Site based on City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade as a PTA 42 5.1 Montana Office Space Demand by 2020 45
5.2 Bozeman Office Employment Growth Forecasts 46 5.3 Bozeman Office Space Demand by Employment Growth 47 5.4 Bozeman Office Space Demand by Population Growth 47
5.5 Office Demand for North Park Site 48 6.1 Bozeman Industrial Demand by Employment Growth 55
6.2 Bozeman Industrial Employment Growth Forecasts 56 6.3 Bozeman Industrial Demand by Population Growth 57 6.4 Industrial Demand for North Park Site 58
7.1 Current & Future Bozeman Hotel Inventory 61 7.2 Bozeman Hotel Demand 64
7.3 Hotel Demand for North Park Site 65
Table of Contents
TABLES PAGE 9.1 Target Market, Price Point & Positioning Summary 76 9.2 Comparison of Market-Driven Demand to Site Development
Capacity 78 9.3 North Park Land Use Demand Summary 79 9.4 North Park Land Use Allocation by Parcel 80
| NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |
FIGURES PAGE
6.1 Bozeman Industrial Lease Rate Trends 51
6.2 Competitive Industrial Inventory – Bruce Industrial Park 53
6.3 Character Imagery of Industrial Business Park Formats 59
7.1 Bozeman Hotel Classes 62
7.2 Bozeman Total Hotels by Age 62
7.3 Hotel Family Trees Part A 66
7.4 Hotel Family Trees Part B 67
8.1 Bozeman Community Recreation Needs by 2025 69
8.2 Character Imagery of Regional Recreation Complexes 73
FIGURES PAGE
1.1 Land Use Assessment & Development Strategy Methodology 4
2.1 Montana Population Growth Trends 6
2.2 Montana Countywide Population Distribution 6
2.3 Montana and National Unemployment Rate Comparison 7
2.4 Montana Participation Rate in Active Outdoor Recreation 8
2.5 Montana Tourism Visitors between 1999 and 2011 9
2.6 Leading Montana Industry Clusters 10
2.7 Bozeman Family Income 13
3.1 Regional Context Map 16
3.2 Montana People Per Square Mile by Census Tract 17
3.3 Local Context Map 18
3.4 North Park Site Strengths 20
3.5 North Park Site Challenges 21
3.6 City of Bozeman OCP Designations at North Park Site &
Surrounding Area 27
3.7 City of Bozeman Plat Applications Over Time 28
3.8 City of Bozeman Final Plat Approvals 2011 28
3.9 City of Bozeman Parks, Rec, Open Space & Trails Plan 29
4.1 Bozeman Retail Lease Rate Trends 31
4.2 Bozeman Retail Sectors 32
4.3 Bozeman Retail Sales by Merchandise Category 32
4.4 Gallatin County Retail Sectors 33
4.5 Gallatin County Visitor Expenditures by Category 33
4.6 North Park Competitive Retail Infrastructure 36
4.7 North Park Site Retail Trade Area Map 37
5.1 Bozeman Office Lease Rate Trends 44
5.2 Character Imagery of Office/Tech Business Park Formats 49
Table of Contents
| NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |
i
MXD Development Strategists Ltd. do not warrant that any estimates
contained within the study will be achieved over the identified time
horizons, but that they have been prepared conscientiously and
objectively on the basis of information obtained during the course of
this study. Also, any tenant or sector references made in the report
are for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as
guarantees that they will locate at the North Park site.
This analysis was conducted by MXD Development Strategists Ltd. as
an objective and independent party; and is not an agent of the City of
Bozeman, DNRC or CTA LandWorks by virtue of this or any subsequent
study to be conducted on this matter.
As is customary in an assignment of this type, neither our name nor
the material submitted may be included in a prospectus, or part of
any printed material, or used in offerings or representations in
connection with the sale of securities or participation interest to the
public, without the expressed permission of MXD Development
Strategists Ltd. or the City of Bozeman or DNRC.
MXD Development Strategists Ltd.
September 2012
MXD Development Strategists Ltd (MXD) of Vancouver, Canada, was
commissioned to conduct a Market Analysis & Development Strategy
working with CTA LandWorks (CTA) and for the City of Bozeman and
the Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (DNRC) and the
parcels of land that collectively make up the North Park site (“North
Park”), in Bozeman, Montana.
As part of the CTA Collaborative team and the overall assignment,
MXD was contracted to conduct the Market Analysis, Development
Program and Financial Analysis component. The study was carried out
over the period April to August 2012.
The objective of this study is to document Bozeman’s current retail,
office, industrial and hotel supply and demand metrics in order to
quantify and prepare a development program for the site that could
be articulated into a Concept Master Plan by CTA LandWorks.
Reference material for this report was obtained from, but not limited
to; State of Montana, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, US Census
Bureau, Montana Office of Tourism, Smith Travel Research, Loop Net,
Grubb & Ellis, NAI Landmark Realty, Montana Workforce Connection
and MXD Development Strategists Ltd.
Preface
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLANi
2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Scope of Study
MXD Development Strategists Ltd. of Vancouver, Canada (“MXD”) was
commissioned by the City of Bozeman and the Department of Natural
Resources & Conservation (“DNRC”), hereafter referred to as the
“Client”, in collaboration with CTA Architects Engineers Planners in
March, 2012 to conduct a Land Use Assessment & Development
Strategy for the North Park site (“North Park”).
North Park is located on the northern edge of the City of Bozeman in
the State of Montana, just south of the Bozeman Yellowstone
International Airport (formerly Gallatin Field). The site lies on the
east side of the I-90 with nearby multi-modal transportation
connectivity to road, rail and air.
1.2 PROJECT METHODOLOGY
The MXD study was undertaken in a detailed and methodical manner
as illustrated in Figure 1.1, Land Use Assessment & Development
Strategy Methodology.
In Step 1 Macro & Micro Analysis was the gathering of information
stage of the process including various government and private
sources such as the City of Bozeman Official Community Plan, City of
Bozeman Economic Development Plan, City of Bozeman Land Use
Inventory Report and Montana Department of Labor and Industry
Quarterly and Annual reports. Background information was
supplemented by comprehensive fieldwork conducted in the market
by MXD including a Location Analysis to establish the basic
development potential for the site. This includes an analysis of the
region, study of the local retail, office, hotel and industrial
competition and the site conditions to verify that the foundation
requirements of real estate development are present and to which
potential magnitude.
The research analysis was further complemented by MXD’s internal
database on development projects internationally and across North
America, including their format, size, mix and performance.
In Step 2 Real Estate Development Trends have been researched and
presented in the form of representative case study profiles and
imagery to demonstrate potential benchmark projects and attributes
of other successful developments.
Step 3 involved researching Growth Trends, Challenges &
Opportunities with respect to population growth and distribution,
employment forecasts, local and statewide economic initiatives and
local trends in commercial, retail, office and industrial development.
Step 4 performs a Supply Analysis in which local market conditions
and the overall existing competitive infrastructure (retail, office,
industrial and hotel) are evaluated to help provide insight into the
market “voids” and this the strategic positioning of the project. The
competitive infrastructure includes retail, office/business park,
industrial, manufacturing and logistics as well as hotel
accommodation.
The analysis is further refined by Analyzing the Land Use Demand in
Step 5. The various market segments including retail, office,
industrial/logistics and hotel/accommodation are assessed with
respect to their respective demographic, employment and spending
characteristics as determined in the identified trade area.
Finally, Step 6 included the formation of a Conceptual Layout
Planning and Land Use Program for the site, built on the research
and analysis from the previous steps and working with CTA
LandWorks.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |1| NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN
3
1.0 Introduction
This process includes the allocation of market demand in physical
form, identification of a conceptual site configuration and layout as
well as a buildable area plan and circulation strategy with respect to
internal traffic and access to and from the existing transportation
network.
The market analysis is combined with the preliminary design and mix
programming to identify the recommended development strategy.
The overall land use and development strategy provides
recommendations for the appropriate and optimal land use and
development program and identifies how this program could be
allocated across the site and which types of design forms could be
seen as most compatible and complementary with the vision of the
City of Bozeman and DNRC.
The report is presented in the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Economic & Market Overview
Section 3: Location & Site Analysis
Section 4: Retail Market Analysis
Section 5: Office Market Analysis
Section 6: Industrial Market Analysis
Section 7: Hotel Market Analysis
Section 8: Recreational Sector Overview
Section 9: Land Use Development Strategy
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN2
4
1.0 Introduction
Figure 1.1: Land Use Assessment & Development Strategy Methodology
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |3
5
SECTION 2.0
ECONOMIC & MARKET OVERVIEW
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN4
6
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
2.1 The Economy of Montana
According to 2010 US Census data, the population for the State of
Montana was just under the million population count at 974,989
residents.
As illustrated in Figure 2.1 the State has been growing exponentially
over the last decade. Gallatin County represents 9% of population
distribution throughout the State, the second highest population after
Yellowstone County at 15%, followed by Missoula County at 11%,
Flathead County at 9% and Cascade County at 8% (refer to Figure
2.2).
Gallatin County is the fastest growing county in Montana, having a
32% growth rate between 2000 and 2010. Estimates forecast that the
population of Gallatin County could surpass 95,000 residents in 2012
and could grow to over 116,000 by 2020. All communities in Gallatin
County saw a population increase, the highest being the City of
Bozeman with an additional 10,000 residents in ten years, a 35.5%
increase for the decade. Current estimates for the City of Bozeman
place the population at almost 39,000 residents or 41% of Gallatin
County.
The City of Belgrade also experienced a significant population
increase from 5,728 residents in 2000 to 7,389 residents in 2010, a
total increase of 29%.
Average annual wages in the Bozeman region are lower than the
national average. In 2010, the annual average wages in the US was
$46,742; compared to Montana at $34,589 and Gallatin County at
$34,108. The region has historically had lower average wages than
the country, but still attracts young workers and families to the area
due to the high quality of life and availability of lifestyle amenities
unique to small town America.
Figure 2.1: Montana State Population Growth Trends
Figure 2.2: Montana County Population Distribution
Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2012)
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |5
7
Montana has maintained a lower-than-national average
unemployment rate over the past year. As illustrated in Figure 2.3
the State unemployment rate in March 2012 was estimated at 6.2%
compared to the national unemployment rate of 8.2%.
Table 2.1 provides a list of the major employers in Gallatin County
based on number of employees. Class 9 is greater than 1,000
employees; Class 8 is 500-999 employees; Class 7 is 250-499
employees and Class 6 is 100 to 249 employees.
According to these employment trends, job availability is greatest in
the categories of Health Care, Home & Garden and Technology. Other
leading regional industries include Construction, Government,
Manufacturing, Retail and Agriculture.
Source: Bureau of Business & Economic Research, University of Montana (2011) Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce (2011)
Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2012)
Figure 2.3: Montana & National Unemployment Rate Comparison
Table 2.1: Top 20 Employers in Gallatin County by Employment Size
Business ClassBusiness Class
Albertsons 6 Murdoch's Ranch/Home Supply 6
Bozeman Deacons Hospital 9 Reach Inc.6
Community Food Co-op 6 Ressler Motors 6
Costco 6 Oracle 8
First Security Bank 6 Rosauers 6
Gibson Guitar 6 Target 6
Kenyon Noble Lumber/Hardware 6 Town & Country Foods 6
Lowes 6 Town Pump 6
Martel Construction 6 Wal-Mart 7
McDonald's 6 Zoot Enterprises 6
Top 20 Private Employers in Gallatin County by Employee Size
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN6
8
The Montana Active Outdoor Recreation Economy is a staple in the
regional economy. This sector contributes over $2.5 billion annually
to Montana’s economy, supports 34,000 jobs across Montana,
generates $118 million in annual state tax revenue and produces
nearly $2 billion annually in retail sales. In addition, outdoor
recreational services across Montana accounting for 7.5% of gross
state product.
The target audience of outdoor recreation in Montana comes from
both local and tourist participation, visiting the 6 regions of the state:
(i) Glacier Country; (ii) Russell Country; (iii) Missouri River Country;
(iv) Southeast Montana; (v) Yellowstone Country; and (vi) Goldwest
Country.
Figure 2.4 illustrates that nearly half of the State’s population are
outdoor recreation enthusiasts; 49% of residents hike, 46% of
residents go camping and 33% of residents are cyclists. On a per
capita basis, Montana consists of active communities with residents
who spend a great deal of their disposable time and income on
outdoor recreational activities.
The residual beneficiary of this highly active outdoor audience in
Bozeman are the number of Sporting Goods retailers in town, both
national and local.
Commercial and retail spin-offs from the active outdoor recreational
industry includes outdoor and recreational gear retail sales. This
merchandise includes apparel, footwear, equipment, accessories and
services. In addition, trip-related expenditures include food and
beverage, transportation, entertainment, lodging, souvenirs as well as
gifts and other miscellaneous items.
Source: Outdoor Industry Foundation (2005)
Figure 2.4: Montana Participation Rate in Active Outdoor Recreation
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |7
9
Local recreational amenities in and around Bozeman, particularly
Yellowstone are a prime attraction for tourists.
In 2011, there were an estimated 10.5 million tourists to the State of
Montana. As illustrated in Figure 2.5, there has been a steady
increase in tourism visits between 1999 and 2007. However, the
economic downturn caused a decline in Montana tourism, but this
has slightly recovered since 2009, whereby visitor numbers have
exceeded the levels of 2006.
Of that total, Yellowstone National Park experienced 3.4 million
visitors in 2011, down 6.8% from 2010.
$2.77 billion in travel expenditures
by non-Montana residents
Figure 2.5: Montana Tourism Visitors between 1999-2011
In 2011, Montana saw over $2.77 billion in travel expenditures spent
by non-residents – an overall increase of 10% than 2010 spending.
The total economic contribution of non-residential spending in
Montana was $3.3 billion, with a direct economic impact of
employment creation through tourism industry of 38,340 jobs.
Montana is a regional and national destination, ranking 5th per capita
for tourist spending in the United States in 2009.
Recession
Recovery
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN8
10
Figure 2.6: Leading Montana Industry Clusters
Construction Outdoor
Recreation
Professional,
Scientific & Technical
Education
Manufacturing &
Technology
Health Care &
Social Services
MONTANA
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |9
11
Top 10 Fastest Growing Occupations in MONTANA 20102020
Annual
Growth Rate
%
1 Biochemists and Biophysicists 1523 4.4
2 Extruding, Forming, Pressing, and Compacting Machinery 4869 3.7
3 Athletic Trainers 135190 3.5
4 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists 6792 3.2
5 Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating,78107 3.2
6 Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers 200273 3.2
7 Helpers--Electricians 5676 3.1
8 Market Research Analysts 168228 3.1
9 Actuaries 3851 3
10 Curators 7195 3
Top 10 Fastest Growing Occupations in MONTANA 20102020 Change
1 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 71,19778,3217,124
2 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 44,72451,7116,987
3 Construction and Extraction Occupations 29,99036,2196,229
4 Sales and Related Occupations 53,62959,1205,491
5 Construction Trades Workers 22,25527,0274,772
6 Food and Beverage Serving Workers 24,49528,6344,139
7 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 26,83530,5123,677
8 Retail Sales Workers 32,45936,0193,560
9 Healthcare Support Occupations 15,85118,8823,031
10 Personal Care and Service Occupations 16,84119,7232,882
Source: Montana Workforce Informer, June 2012
Table 2.4: Top 10 Fastest Growing Occupations in Montana by Change in Total Number of Employees
Table 2.3: Top 10 Fastest Growing Occupations in Montana by Average Annual Growth Rate
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN10
12
2.2 The Economy of Bozeman
Bozeman’s economy much like the State is anchored around the
industries highlighted in Figure 2.7, at the core of which lie Health
Care and Education, while growing and further targeted sectors
include Manufacturing and Technology.
According to the US Census data 2010, the median household income
for the City of Bozeman was $56,683 per family. As illustrated in
Figure 2.8, over 59% of families make over $50,000 per year. For
nonfamily households, the median income was $30,499 per resident.
Overall, there is $26,038 dollars on a per capita basis in Bozeman.
In Bozeman, the highest wages by industry are found in
Finance/Insurance, Transportation/Warehousing/Utilities and
Professional/Scientific/Technical industries at $47,650, $31,933 and
$30,851 salaries respectively per worker per year. The lowest paying
industries are Accommodation/Food Services, Retail Trade and
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation industries at $10,705, $16,467 and
$14,859 salaries per worker per year.
The cost of living in Bozeman is high relative to the average income
on a per capita basis. In fact, 51% of housing renters spend over 30%
or more of their household income on housing, which is above the
standard housing affordability measurement. In addition and
compared to the rest of Montana, Bozeman has the highest cost of
living across the entire state.
As illustrated in Table 2.2, the two most significant employment
nodes within the City of Bozeman are Montana State University and
the Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, providing a total of 2,679 jobs and
1,238 jobs respectively.
Source: US Census Bureau (2010)
City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan (2009)
Table 2.2: Bozeman Top Employers by Employment Numbers
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
Company # of Employees
Montana State University 2,679
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital 1,238
Bozeman Public School District 587
Gallatin County Government 460
Oracle 400
Wal-Mart 370
City of Bozeman 351
Kenyon-Noble Lumber Company 236
Williams Plumbing & Heating 200
Zoot Enterprises 177
Costco Wholesale 176
Bozeman Community Food Co-op 170
Simkins-Hallin Lumber Company 169
Murdoch's Ranch & Home Supply 160
Martel Construction 150
Gibson Guitar-Montana Division 140
Billion Auto Group 135
Bozeman Daily Chronicle 128
Rosaur's Supermarket 123
Best Western GranTree Inn 115
Target 110
City of Bozeman Largest Public & Private Employers
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |11
13
All other major employers in Bozeman employ in the range of 100 to
600 employees per company. The City is highly dependent upon the
Educational and the Health Services sector industries.
Accordingly, North Park represent a significant opportunity for the
City and DNRC to provide the location and framework for a
diversification in the economy toward sectors such as
Manufacturing and Technology.
Bozeman has the highest percentage of people age 25 years and older
with a Bachelor’s Degree or greater in Montana (refer to Table 2.5).
Montana State University is Gallatin county’s largest employer with
2,307 full-time faculty and staff, 668 part-time employees and 551
graduate teaching and research assistants. The largely academic
presence in Bozeman fosters a think-tank and entrepreneur culture
for new and progressive business industries.
According to the Kauffman Foundation, Montana has the highest level
of entrepreneurial activity in the nation with approximately 600
entrepreneurs per 100,000 residents. A number of these small, start-
up companies are directly related to the programs, research projects
and business culture that is fostered by Montana State University,
especially in the technology industry sector at the innovation campus.
Population Age Total #High School Grad or
Higher
Bachelor's Degree or
Higher
25 to 34 7,06398.7%55.4%
35 to 44 3,64195.6%55.5%
45 to 64 6,25895.4%54.5%
65+2,49690.7%44.5%
Table 2.5: Bozeman Educational Attainment
Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2012) US Census Bureau (2010)
Figure 2.7: Bozeman Family Incomes
Bozeman is a Smart City with an
Entrepreneur Culture
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN12
14
With each entrepreneur start-up company employing between 1 and
5 persons, and the high per capita entrepreneur businesses for the
local area, Bozeman has a unique business niche of a thriving
boutique business culture. Having a numerous small companies as
opposed to a few mega companies allows for community economic
diversity as well as community employment stability.
Major industry sectors in Bozeman generally reflect the industry
trends in the rest of Montana. The technology sector is booming in
Bozeman, with specialization leading towards advanced
manufacturing, laser optics, information technology,
biotech/bioscience and agri-enviro tech firms.
The technology cluster’s top companies include Golden Helix
(bioinformatics), LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals (clinical drug
development), Oracle (customer relationship management) and ILX
Lightwave (phototonics).
The City of Bozeman has implemented favourable economic
development and economic incentive tools that also balance the
urban aesthetics and renewal districts of the various neighborhood
communities.
Firstly, Bozeman businesses benefit from the no general sales taxes
on businesses within the State of Montana.
The State has been ranked as the most business friendly state by
Forbes Magazine, 6th in the nation for best business tax climate by
The Tax Foundation and 3rd in the nation for the best sales tax
climate for business by Business Facilities magazine. Source: City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan (2009)
The State also supports growing industries in Bozeman through
incentive programs such as the Montana Technology Innovation
Partnership to promote technology start-up companies.
In addition to state-wide innovation benefits, the City of Bozeman has
a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) program that encourages
reinvestment, redevelopment and revitalization of distressed
properties in specially designated districts throughout the City. There
are 4 TIF districts within the City of Bozeman, one of which is North
Park. This TIF designation allows for financing current infrastructure
improvements through ‘future gains in property taxes’ that can, in
theory, increase due to raised property values of real estate due to
site improvements and design enhancements.
The combination of smarts, business savyness, supportive political
atmosphere, growing population and positive industry reports
indicate that Bozeman is in the position to incubate an economic
landmark node that caters to local businesses today and in the
future.
Bozeman has a thriving
Boutique Business Culture
6th best business tax climate
(The Tax Foundation )
Most business friendly state
(Forbes Magazine)
3rd best sales tax climate
(Business Facilities magazine)
2.0 Economic & Market Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |13
15
SECTION 3.0
LOCATION & SITE ANALYSIS
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN14
16
3.1 Regional Context
Figure 3.1 illustrates the regional context of Bozeman. The City of
Bozeman is located in southwestern Montana; the municipal gateway
to Yellowstone National Park. According to the US Census Bureau
(2010), the total population in Bozeman was 37,280 residents. The
nearby and smaller City of Belgrade had a total population of 7,389
residents in 2010.
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
Figure 3.1: Regional Context Map
Source: US Census Bureau (2010) Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2012)
Bozeman is the primary business, social, cultural and recreational hub
of Gallatin County, which with a total 2010 population of 89,513 residents. Current trends in population migration patterns suggest that Bozeman is a Boomerang Community – meaning that residents leave at some point but return. This is particularly common for local and
foreign young people who attend post-secondary education and then leave Bozeman to pursue other career opportunities out of town or out of state.
At some point, these former MSU students
return to Bozeman for reasons including
furthering their career, excellent quality of life,
lifestyle or to raise a family.
They leave and then return back to their
“hometown”, especially if their families reside
in Bozeman where they can receive livability
help by way of child care relief or financially
getting on their feet.
Bozeman has a young
Boomerang Generation
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |15
17
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
Source: US Census Bureau (2010)
Figure 3.2: Montana People Per Square Mile by Census Tract
As illustrated in Figure 3.2 the City of Bozeman is situated in one of
the highest density locations in the State of Montana, with the
surrounding small town and rural communities creating a strong
population catchment area.
Compared to the eastern side of the State, which is rural and scarcely
populated with less than 1 person per square mile, Bozeman is well
situated to attract and pull investors, tourists and business from other
parts of the higher density communities in south central Montana, as
well as in the Intermountain West region
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN16
18
3.2 Local Context
North Park is situated northern edge of the City of Bozeman. As
illustrated in Figure 3.3, the site is located on the highly visible east
side of the well-travelled I-90 State highway, forming a long
continuous stretch of future valuable highway frontage.
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
6 miles (7 minute drive)
146 miles (2 hours & 17 minute drive)
Figure 3.3: Local Context Map
The smaller City of Belgrade, located approximately 6 miles north
west of the North Park site is the closest municipality to Bozeman
within an approximate 7-minute drive. To the East, the City of Billings
is approximately 146 miles driving distance with an approximate 2 to
2 ½ hr drive.
Other nearby communities include Livingston, Four Corners and
Three Forks.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |17
19
Table 3.1: North Park Site Development Evaluation Criteria
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
Site Criteria Current Site Qualities Degree of Opportunity
- Strong Visibility from I-90 Frontage Road on West and East sides of the Site
- Terrain is relatively flat with good visibility from adjacent commercial and residential
neighbourhoods
- Located on I-90, the site is accessible for highway commuter traffic travelling between the City of
Bozeman and the City of Belgrade
- The site is within 7.5 miles from the Bozeman Yellowstone Int'l Airport via I-90
- Bozeman is the first major City between Billings and Butte, and the gateway to Yellowstong National
Park
- I-90 is a major traffic generator
- Low drive time for residents within the City of Bozeman and the greater Bozeman area
- Existing Red Wing Drive provides site access to the East
- There is no frontage access road to the site on the West side of the site
- Existing rail tracks to the north east side of the site limits access via vehicles but allows for rail- to-
development connectivity
- Existing Mandeville Farm House
- Hotel Cluster to the north west of the site
- Existing big-box/large-format commercial retail development located west across I-90
- Vacant and serviced commercial retail land available for development located west across I-90
- Light Industrial/Flex Business Park/Storage located to the south and south east of the site
- Existing large format commercial retail development is located west across I-90
- Other existing large format commercial development located in different area nodes of the City
- Industrial land uses primarily located in Belgrade, Four Corners and site-scattered in Bozeman
Parking - Size of site parcel can allow for sufficient parking area High
- Excellent frontage along I-90 West and East
- Pear Shape allows for large and/or small plots, natural municipal landmark into Bozeman
- Existing watercourse/stream divides the parcel, limiting plot size and shape
- Site is clear of most vegetation with interim agricultural activity
- Size of site is the largest contiguous piece of property in Bozeman for a master planned development
TOTAL HIGH
Size & Shape High
Site Accessibilty Moderate
Adjacent Land Uses High
Potential Competitive Sites Low
Local Accessibility High
Visibility High
Regional Accessibility High
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN18
20
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
Figure 3.4: North Park Site STRENGTHS
SITE
Proximity
to Airport
High Commuter
Traffic Volume
Connectivity to Active Rail Line
Existing Red Wing Drive Access Road
Adjacent to major interchange
for regional accessibility
‘First Impression’ landmark parcel into the City of Bozeman
Strong Visibility from I-90
Growing Residential
Population (West)
Established Hotel Cluster
Potential for green space connectivity
Established Light Industrial Uses
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |19
21
Figure 3.5: North Park Site CHALLENGES
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN20
22
….
•Strong ‘wrap-around’ 360 visibility from I-90
•Designated as a “Tax Increment Financing” (TIF)
Districts by the City of Bozeman
•Growing Residential Population West of site
•Short Drive Time for local population
•Flat topography, mostly cleared of vegetation with
some ongoing agricultural activities
•Multi-modal connectivity to road, rail and air
•Large parcel size is the only continuous parcel of its
kind in Bozeman - increases development options
•Existing watershed divides the site, limiting parcel
configuration
•Limited access to the Site from I90
•Traffic congestion at I-90 intersection south of the
site
•Limited transportation (vehicle, cycling, pedestrian)
connectivity from East to West
•Form an ‘economic cluster’ of activities
•Build a rail spur for land-to-rail connectivity
•Utilize the multi-model connectivity by establishing a
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) to incubate importing and
exporting of goods, generating opportunities for
existing companies to grow and allow for
entrepreneurs to ‘start-up’ and capitalize on the
economic synergy
•Design with the watershed to create amenity feature
•Create ‘First Impression’ landmark parcel into the
City of Bozeman
•Surrounded with new, well-designed Commercial,
Retail and Hotel development projects
•Competing with Big Box and other Large
Format Retail Development in North West
Bozeman
•Established Competitive Hotel Cluster north
of Site
•Well-established industrial employment node and
economic activity located in the City of Belgrade
west of the site
Table 3.2: North Park Site SWOT Analysis
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |21
23
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
North Park Site - Current Status Photos
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN22
24
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |23
25
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN24
26
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |25
27
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
Figure 3.6: City of Bozeman Official Community Plan Designations at North Park Site & Surrounding Area
3.3 Land Use Context
According to the Bozeman Community Plan (“BCP”), the North Park
lands, as shown in Figure 3.6 are currently zoned for Industrial Land
Uses for the purpose of manufacturing, warehousing and
transportation/hub activities. However, pending the results of the
Market Analysis, the site could be subject to rezoning.
Source: City of Bozeman Official Community Plan (2009)
As illustrated in Figure 3.6, the surrounding land uses are designated
for Regional Commercial and Services, Community Commercial Mixed
Use and some Residential, Present Rural and Parks, Open Space and Recreational Lands. The adjacent land uses should be considered for
complementarity and compatibility when examining any potential
land use amendments
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN26
28
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
Development and City Plat Applications are good indications of the
local economy and development patterns over time. Figure 3.7
shows that development was quiet in the mid and late 1990s, and
began increasing in the early 2000s. The City of Bozeman had a spike
in Plat Applications in 2004 and 2005, with a number of applications
being approved and finalised in 2006.
However, as evidenced in Figures 3.7 and Figure 3.8, the national and
global economic downturn had a significant negative consequence on
the Bozeman development community.
In 2008, Plat Applications and Approvals essentially reached a
screeching halt. Starting in 2009, the economy started to recover but
as of yet, the number of Plat Applications and Final Plat Lot approvals
have not yet reached the numbers from 1996.
By and large, development in all real estate sectors within the City of
Bozeman has a long way to bounce back and this transition will most
likely be a slow and cautious rebound. This rebound will have a
direct impact on the timing of the potential full buildout of North
Park and as such phasing of the development will be critical, as will
patience.
Further to the historic development and Plat Application trends, the
City of Bozeman’s Final Platted Commercial Lots in 2010 was minimal
(refer to Figure 3.8). In 2010, there were a total of 129 applications
for Single Household Residence, while only 2 Industrial applications
and 1 Commercial Application. Similarly in 2011, there were only 3
Final Platted Lots in total, all of which were Commercial.
As illustrated in Figure 3.8, the real estate market is largely
dominated by the Residential Sector. This indicates that investors
have lesser interest in other forms of development such as industrial
or commercial projects, and that Residential development projects,
while still slower are considered as more favourable during the
economic recovery time period.
Figure 3.7: City of Bozeman Plat Applications Trends Over Time
Figure 3.8: City of Bozeman Plat Final Platted Lots by Type in 2010
Recession
Recovery
Source: City of Bozeman Annual Report (2011)
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |27
29
3.4 Non-Vehicular Transportation Connectivity
As part of the active community spirit and outdoor recreational
culture of Bozeman, the City has a comprehensive network of non-
vehicular transportation corridors that links parks, open space, trails
and designated bike routes throughout the City.
As illustrated in Figure 3.9, North Park is surrounded by foot and
cycling trail networks that could potentially be woven into the
development strategy if planned and deemed appropriate.
Source: City of Bozeman (2007)
Figure 3.9: City of Bozeman Parks, Rec, Open Space, Trails Plan
However, the less populated eastern residential communities (i.e.
east of I-90) have limited direct cycling connectivity to western
residential communities (i.e. west of I-90). This disconnect represents
an issue considering the number of school children that may have to
travel from east to west for their education.
In light of this, there is a potential opportunity for the development
at North Park to incorporate vehicular transportation upgrades in
the form of an I-90 overpass or underpass along Mandeville Drive to
Baxter Lane, as well as pedestrian/cycling infrastructure in order to
safely connect the northeast and northwest communities.
North Park can be a vessel for community connectivity - north to
south and east to west.
3.0 Location & Site Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN28
30
SECTION 4.0
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |29
31
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
4.1 Retail Market Overview
The Retail Real Estate Market is a balance of downtown-oriented
shops and large format commercial retail development. Prior to
2002, the City of Bozeman was losing retail expenditures from the
local population from residents travelling to other regional-serving
communities, such as Billings at Big Box shopping centers. Since then,
the City adopted a “Big Box” Ordinance, allowing for large format
retail development projects to enter the local market. Some of the
newer stores in Bozeman as a result include Home Depot, Lowes, Bed
Bath & Beyond, REI and Cost Plus World Market. At the same time,
the City of Bozeman has successfully implemented a higher quality
urban design mandate on these large format retail projects including
enhanced landscaping, setbacks, architectural design guidelines and
in some cases, limiting the size and format of the building footprint to
a maximum of 75,000 sf.
For all retail formats In 2011, there was a total Retail inventory of 2.5
million sf (including automotive), averaging out to approximately 65 sf
per capita, for all retail space (i.e. including not just organized
shopping center space). In the United States, the typical average
urban market averages a total retail space per capita in the range of
40 sf. However, recognizing the regional-serving nature of the
Bozeman market, if factoring into the equation that most of the
patronage comes from Gallatin County, the actual retail space per
capita is more likely to be in the range of 36 sf. (This assumes an
additional 750,000 sf of retail space in Gallatin County divided by a
County population of approximately 95,000).
As of the second quarter of 2011, retail vacancy was averaging around
7% (Note: a healthy retail environment should be around 4% to 7%).
As summarized in Figure 4.1, current average asking Lease Rates have
remained stable since 2010 in the range of $10.00 to $12.00 per sf,
although this does vary from $9.00 for Neighborhood scale to $25.00
for Power Center formats and on the quality of the development
itself.
Source: Grubb & Ellis (Q4, 2011)
City of Bozeman Annual Report (2010)
NAI Landmark Realty Metropolitan Area Market Overview, January 2012
Figure 4.1: Bozeman Retail Lease Rate Trends
Retail Lease Rates Low High Avg Vacancy
Downtown $13.00 $18.00 $15.50 7.0%
Neighborhood $8.00 $10.00 $9.00 8.0%
Community Power Center $16.00 $25.00 $20.50 8.0%
Regional Malls $18.00 $25.00 $21.50 3.0%
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN30
32
Figure 4.3: Bozeman Retail Sales by Merchandise Category
Figure 4.2: Bozeman Retail Sectors Historic retail data reporting on the number of
establishments per retail sector in Bozeman and
Gallatin County can be reviewed in Figures 4.2
and 4.4.
As illustrated in Figure 4.2, the Top 3 Retail
Merchandise categories for the City of Bozeman
with respect to number of establishments are: (i)
Miscellaneous Store Retailers; (ii) Clothing &
Accessories; and (iii) Sporting/Hobby/Books/
Music.
Figure 4.3 highlights two (2) merchandise
categories that stand out with respect to retail
sales: Motor Vehicles/Parts Dealers; 24
establishments and $150,497,000 in annual sales;
and Food & Beverage; 20 establishments with
$104,584,000 in annual sales (2002).
The number of establishments for Gallatin County
as a whole reflects the retail trends in the City of
Bozeman. Based on the number of
establishments, Figure 4.4 shows the Top 3 Retail
Merchandise categories being Miscellaneous
Store Retailers, Sporting/Hobby/Books/Music and
Building/Garden Supply.
Source: City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan (2009)
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |31
33
Figure 4.5: Gallatin County Visitor Expenditures by Category
Source: City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan (2009)
According to the Institute for Tourism and Recreation
Research (refer to Figure 4.5), total Gallatin County
Visitor Expenditures totaled $601,987,015 as
reported in the City of Bozeman Economic
Development Plan 2009.
Retail categories comprising Restaurants, Retail and
Grocery totaled $271.8 million, with Restaurants
($141.3 million) accounting for 52% of that total.
Estimates by the Institute for Tourism & Recreation
Research suggest that the Bozeman region attracts
an annual tourist base in the range of 2 million non-
resident visitors, 68% of which visit Yellowstone but
spend at least one night in Bozeman.
Figure 4.4: Gallatin County Retail Sectors
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN32
34
In addition to being an entrepreneurial culture, residents in the City
of Bozeman can be described as having a very conscientious
consumer culture.
There are benefits to buying from franchise businesses, such as
providing affordable options for consumers. That said, there are
numerous reasons to maintain a local business culture. One reason is
it keeps the character of communities unique compared to other
neighborhoods in the City or other cities found regionally or
nationally. This is especially attractive to tourists who seek ‘different
than the average’ commercial retail places.
The City of Bozeman has concentrated and cultivated a strong local
business environment in the downtown core, primarily along East
Main Street.
The local businesses fits well within the historic charm of downtown.
In addition, local shops often have a strong economic ripple effect to
other local businesses, such as purchasing produce from regional
farms. This keeps money in the community.
Entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest in and
establish their careers or companies in communities that preserve
their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character. The
inspiration is contagious and benefits other sectors of the real estate
market.
It will be important for North Park’s potential retail program (amount
and mix) to recognize the strong efforts at establishing and promoting
a local retail culture, while ensuring stable growth into the future.
Bozeman has a conscientious
consumer culture; they think local
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |33
35
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN34
36
4.2 Competitive Retail Infrastructure
The nature and type of competition is a critical component for
evaluating the supply and demand for the retail market.
Major retail clusters and corridors within the City of Bozeman must
be considered in order to understand how the retail sector functions
within the community.
Figure 4.6 and Table: 4.1 document the major retail areas and nodes within Bozeman, identifying the approximate drive time to the North Park site, format, estimated size, tenant composition and other characteristics.
The area west of North Park along N 19th Ave represents a major retail corridor, within which many large developable sites remain available. The propensity of retailers to cluster suggests N 19th Ave will still be the preferred location for short and medium term retail developments of significance. Figure 4.6: North Park Competitive Retail Infrastructure
MAP KEY
Commercial Corridor
Enclosed Shopping Center
Power Center & Strip Retail
Neighborhood Commercial
1
3
4
5
6
7
SITE
2
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |35
37
Table 4.1: North Park Competitive Retail Infrastructure
The Bozeman Retail Real Estate Market has had an influx of large
format commercial development projects since 2003. These
developments have been increasingly concentrated in the north
sector of Bozeman (along N 19th Ave) due to the large parcel
availability.
In fact, there are still a number of serviced lots slated for large format
commercial retail development when the market permits, especially
in the East Valley Center development – directly across North Park
West of I-90.
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NO.NAME LOCATION
DISTANCE TO
MANDEVILLE FORMAT ANCHORS OTHER PRIMARY TENANTS VACANCY
1 East Valley Center N. 19th Avenue at Dead
Man's Gulch and East
Valley Center Road,
northwest sector
0.3 miles Large Format/Big
Box and Strip Retail
Costco, Bob Ward &
Sons Sporting Goods
PetSmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, Staples, Serviced,
Vacant land
available
2 Stoneridge Square N. 19th Avenue between
W. Oak Street and
Tschache Lane
0.7 mi Large Format/Big
Box and Strip Retail
Lowe's Home
Improvement, REI, Home
Depot
Wholesale Sports, Old Chicago, Ihop,
Taco Del Mar, Office Depot
Serviced,
Vacant land
available
3 Northgate/Westlake
Shopping Center
N. 7th Avenue and W.
Oak Street
1.7 mi Large Format/Big
Box and Strip Retail
Wal-Mart K-Mart, Applebees, Arby's
4 Bozeman Gateway
Shopping Center
W. Main/Huffine Lane
and Harmon Stream
Boulevard
4.6 mi Large Format Strip
Commercial Retail
Rosauer's Supermarket,
Kohl's
Bank of Bozeman Serviced,
Vacant land
available
5 Gallatin Valley Mall W. Main/Huffine Lane
and Harmon Stream
Boulevard
4.6 mi Enclosed Shopping
Mall
Barnes & Noble Hollywood Theatre Gallatin, JC Penney,
Victoria's Secret, Sears Hometown Store
6 Four Squares North Rouse Avenue
between I-90 and E.
Griffin Drive
1.1 mi Neighbourhood
Commercial
The Daily Coffee Bar &
Bakery, Planet Natural
Lone Mountain, Refuge Sustainable
Building Center
7 Downtown Core East/West Main Street 1.7 mi Commercial
Corridor
Community Food Co-op,
Bangtail Bicycle Shop,
Bozeman Running Co.,
Helly Hansen,
Schnee's Boots and Shoes, Cactus
Records Gifts & More, Chalet Sports,
Universal Athletic, Chocolate Moose,
Great Rocky Mountain Toy Company,
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN36
38
4.3 Retail Trade Area
A Retail Trade Area was delineated for the potential development
project at North Park. A trade area is the geographic catchment area
of a potential consumer population from which the site could attract
the majority of its most consistent patronage. Identifying a trade
area for North Park is essential to understand the market potential
available to the proposed development from the surrounding
residential neighborhoods and surrounding employment nodes.
This type of information paints a picture as to the type and form of
tenants that are warranted in the area and which could be supported
by the local population. The typical trade area criteria and principles
are outlined in Table 4.2.
Typically, trade areas are subdivided based on physical distance
and/or travel time. These subdivisions include a Primary Trade Area
(PTA) from which the majority of local Trade Area business is
expected to originate from.
Outside of the PTA is the Secondary Trade Area (STA) where
consumers are likely to visit the development site on an infrequent
basis. In some larger city markets, a third trade area or Tertiary Trade
Area (TTA) is established usually for development projects to provide
a unique-to-market destination shopping, dining and entertainment
experience.
Figure 4.7 depicts a more regional Trade Area similar to that which
would be used by the Gallatin Valley Mall. However, when taking into
account the North Park site, its vision as well as the many attributes
articulated in Table 4.2, the most reasonable retail Trade Area for
North Park encompasses the area shown as PTA Gallatin County. This
is also the area within which the majority of the regions employment
base would be sourced.
Table 4.2: Trade Area Boundary Determinants
The North Park Total PTA comprising Gallatin, Park, Madison and
Broadwater Counties, totals over 122,000 residents.
The PTA Gallatin County has an estimated population of 95,547
(2012) resulting in potential retail spending in the magnitude of $1.15
billion .
Accordingly, it can be seen that the majority of the population base
and spending is likely to be derived from Gallatin County as it pertains
to future demand at North Park.
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
1 Transportation networks, including streets and highways,
which affect access, travel times, commuting and
employment distribution patterns;
2 Major infrastructure projects both planned or under
development which will affect future travel patterns;
3 The development vision, including an understanding of its
site characteristics and potential target ‘audience’;
4 The local and regional competitive retail environment,
including future competitors under proposal or development;
5 The project’s proposed non-retail generative uses and their
relationship within the wider market;
6 Significant natural and man-made barriers (e.g. water
features, highways and industrial areas);
7 De facto barriers resulting from notable socio-economic
differentiation;
8 Patterns of existing and future residential and commercial
development.
Trade Area Boundary Determinants
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |37
39
Figure 4.7.: North Park Site Trade Area Map
Total Retail Trade Area of
177,000 residents in 2012
spending $2.1 billion
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN38
40
4.4 Retail Demand Quantification The process for quantifying the potential retail demand at North Park includes two methodologies.
The first step includes an examination and analysis of retail spending patterns for the likely retail Trade Areas, applying per capita retail
spending against new population growth. The second step includes a forecast of retail demand driven by new
population growth within that same trade area, but measured against a more sensitized per capita space ratio, which in this case is estimated to be 20 sf/capita.
Accordingly and because each approach will lead to different demand forecasts, a blended average of the two approaches articulated above
is calculated against which a market share for North Park could be applied, thereby yielding benchmarks for cumulative demand over time (refer to Tables 4.3 to 4.6). For the purposes of this demand
forecasting, the time frame utilized ranges from 2012 to 2030. In addition to the latter quantitative approaches, the overall demand
and application of market shares reflects an understanding of the current market performance (i.e. vacancy, lease rates, new developments etc.) as well as an understanding of the site`s strengths
and weaknesses. As documented, the most likely Trade Area for any retail development
at North Park is to be sourced from the PTA Gallatin County and its estimated 95,000 residents.
However, within Gallatin County, it is even more conceivable given the site`s location and envisioned cross-section of land uses, not to mention limitations regarding direct highway access that the ``core``
trade area could well be the City of Bozeman and City of Belgrade and the approximate 46,000 residents therein.
Tables 4.3 & 4.4 illustrate the forecasted demand using Gallatin County as a Primary Trade Area.
In this trade area analysis and demand forecast, the demand
generated by new resident retail spending is estimated to grow from 80,000 sf in 2012 to 1.4 million sf by 2030. This demand is for the entire trade area representing Gallatin County. Similarly, using a per capita ratio of 20 sf which is consistent with the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) range for organized shopping center space (either enclosed or power center), the forecasted demand based on new population growth could range from 61,000 sf in 2012 to just under 1 million sf by 2030.
When applying a reasonable and feasible 5% market share (refer to Table 4.4) of this total forecasted demand to North Park, recognizing the site’s attributes and constraints as well as current market performance and future competition, suggests North Park could support as much as 583,000 sf by 2030. However, it is also important to be cognizant of the site’s carrying capacity (i.e. how much land can be made available for retail), as well as understanding whom any potential tenants could be and how they must respect and balance with the existing retail and consumer culture in Bozeman. Accordingly, Tables 4.5 & 4.6, provide the same analysis but using the combined City of Bozeman and City of Belgrade as the Primary Trade
Area. As such, demand generated by new resident retail spending in the City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade is estimated to grow from 22,000 sf in 2012 to 566,000 sf by 2030.
Similarly, using the per capita approach the demand could range from
17,000 sf in 2012 to just under 400,000 sf by 2030. When applying a reasonable and feasible 5% market share (refer to Table 4.6) of the City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade total forecasted demand, suggests North Park could support in the range of 220,000 sf by 2030. Therefore, it could reasonably be expected that the retail demand by 2030 could be in the supportable range of 250,000 sf to 350,000 sf., though phasing of the demand would be warranted and justified.
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |39
41
Table 4.3: Retail Demand Based On Gallatin County as Primary Trade Area
Table 4.4: Blended Average Market Share Retail Demand For North Park Site Based on Gallatin County as Primary Trade Area
Mandeville Properties Feasible Cumulative Retail Market Share of Retail Trade Area Demand (PTA Gallatin County)
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Bozeman Demand Blended
Average (sf)69,962142,670218,236296,772345,115394,705445,575497,768551,313806,5421,197,216
Mandeville Marketshare 5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
Mandeville Feasible Retail
Space (sf)3,4987,13410,91214,83917,25619,73522,27924,88827,56640,32759,861
Cumulative (sf)3,49810,63221,54336,38253,63873,37395,652120,540148,106323,616 582,697
Retail Demand Through Expenditure Growth - PTA Gallatin County
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Per Cap Retail Spending $11,970$12,217$12,469$12,726$12,989$13,257$13,531$13,814$14,100$15,633$17,344
Population Growth 95,54798,715101,988105,370107,439109,549111,700113,893116,130126,590142,092
New Population Growth 3,0663,1683,2733,3822,0692,1102,1512,1932,2372,1653,245
New Spending $36,704,306$38,703,801$40,811,903$43,034,158$26,875,886$27,969,056$29,107,703$30,300,025$31,534,659$33,842,060$56,281,280
Sales Productivity $467$472$476$481$486$491$496$501$506$531$559
Annual Retail Demand by Spending SF 78,59682,05785,67089,44055,30456,98458,71760,51762,35963,674100,754
Cumulative Retail Demand by Spending SF 78,596160,653246,323335,763391,067448,051506,768567,285629,644930,9041,402,210
Shopping Centre Per Capita Space Ratio (sf/cap)2020202020202020202020
Annual Retail Demand by Per Capita Space Ratio
SF 61,32763,36165,46167,63241,38342,19543,02443,86944,73043,29664,900
Cumulative Retail Demand by Per Capita Space
Ratio SF 61,327124,688190,149257,781299,164341,359384,382428,251472,981682,181992,221
Source: MXD Development Strategists 2012, US Census Bureau 2010 , Environics Analytics/Claritas 2010 and International Council of Shopping Centers “Mountain Mall Sales Productivity 2011)
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
North Park Marketshare
North Park Feasible Retail
North Park Properties Feasible Cumulative Retail Market Share of Retail Trade Area Demand (PTA Gallatin County)
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN40
42
Mandeville Properties Feasible Cumulative Retail Market Share of Retail Trade Area Demand (PTA City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade)
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Bozeman Demand Blended
Average (sf)19,70539,94360,72882,076104,004126,527149,664173,436197,857330,406482,372
Mandeville Marketshare 5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
Mandeville Feasible Retail
Space (sf)985 1,9973,0364,1045,2006,3267,4838,6729,89316,52024,119
Cumulative (sf)985 2,9826,01910,12315,32321,64929,13237,80447,697116,683 221,662
Table 4.5: Retail Demand for City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade as Primary Trade Area
Table 4.6: Blended Average Market Share Retail Demand for North Park Properties Based on City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade y as Primary Trade Area
Retail Demand Through Expenditure Growth - PTA City of Bozeman & Belgrade
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Per Cap Retail Spending $11,970$12,217$12,469$12,726$12,989$13,257$13,531$13,814$14,100$15,633$17,344
Population Growth 46,37947,26048,16149,08050,01850,97751,95552,95453,97459,40665,436
New Population Growth 864882900919939958978999 1,0201,1321,257
New Spending $10,338,016$10,772,729$11,225,758$11,697,783$12,190,446$12,703,575$13,238,899$13,800,257$14,382,584$17,700,024$21,801,887
Sales Productivity $467$472$476$481$486$491$496$501$506$531$559
Annual Retail Demand by Spending SF 22,13722,84023,56424,31225,08525,88226,70627,56328,44133,30339,029
Cumulative Retail Demand by Spending SF 22,13744,97768,54192,853117,938143,821170,526198,089226,530382,989566,317
Shopping Centre Per Capita Space Ratio (sf/cap)2020202020202020202020
Annual Retail Demand by Per Capita Space Ratio
SF 17,27317,63618,00618,38418,77019,16519,56819,98020,40122,64425,141
Cumulative Retail Demand by Per Capita Space
Ratio SF 17,27334,90952,91571,29990,069109,234128,803148,783169,183277,823398,427
Source: MXD Development Strategists 2012, US Census Bureau 2010 , Environics Analytics/Claritas 2010 and International Council of Shopping Centers “Mountain Mall Sales Productivity 2011)
4.0 Retail Market Analysis
North Park Properties Feasible Cumulative Retail Market Share of Retail Trade Area Demand (PTA City of Bozeman & City of Belgrade)
North Park Marketshare
North Park Feasible Retail
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |41
43
SECTION 5.0
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN42
44
Office Market Analysis
5.1 Office Market Overview In 2011, the total Office space inventory was estimated to approximately 3.8 million sf. Based on the population total of 37,280
residents from the US Census, this averages out to approximately 101.9 sf of office per capita.
However, since Bozeman is the major office center for Gallatin County, much like the retail market, when factoring a population of approximately 95,000 residents, the actual per capita ratio is more
accurately portrayed as 40 sf per capita. Bozeman’s economy is harnessed by Education, Government and
Health Care with support service sectors in technology research, professional/scientific industries and business, finance and real estate sectors. Because these industry categories require office space, and
since these industry sectors dominant the economic landscape of Bozeman, the high ratio of office sf per capita is somewhat understandable.
Regardless though, this is still a higher than average ratio of office space, which should be more in the range of 18 sf to 22 sf per capita
for a market of Bozeman’s size and may be an indication as to current oversupply and vacancy issues.
Figure 5.1: Bozeman Office Lease Rate Trends
Average asking lease rates have remained relatively stable over the past five to six years hovering at around $12.00 per sf. As illustrated
in Figure 5.1 the average asking lease rate for office space in 2012 was $12.25.
Vacancy for new suburban space in Bozeman, ranging from 9% to 18% is above the industry norm for a healthy office environment, which should be around 8%. Accordingly, any traditional office type
development at North Park should exercise caution in the amount and timing of the development in order to ensure current new and Class A space can be occupied.
3.8 million SF of
Office Space
Suburban Office Low High Avg Vacancy
New Construction (AAA) $13.00 $14.00 $13.50 9.0%
Class A Prime $10.00 $12.00 $11.00 15.0%
Class B Secondary $7.00 $10.00 $8.50 18.0% Source: Grubb & Ellis (Q4, 2011)
NAI Landmark Realty Metropolitan Area Market Overview, January 2012
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |43
45
5.2 Office Demand Quantification
Using the current office supply and market performance metrics as
well as the forecasted growth in employment and population growth,
the estimated demand for new office space was calculated, using two
scenarios – “Office Demand Through Employment Growth” and
“Office Demand Through Population Growth”.
Projected office space demand is calculated by the growth in major
employment sectors that utilize standard office space such as
Business Services, Finance, Real Estate, Education and Public
Administrative Support, among other industries.
The Montana Department of Labor & Industry completed a Montana
Employment Projections Study that calculated the gain in workers per
industry sectors. Based on employment projections, the office-
related industries were calculated per the typical sf per worker,
revealing a total project demand of office space for all of Montana to
total 3.1 million sf over the period 2013 to 2020 (as illustrated in
Table 5.1).
This averages out to approximately 444,000 sf per year of office space
for the entire State.
Table 5.2 highlights the office employment sector industries and the
forecasted growth rates as projected for Region 2, in which Bozeman
serves as the largest urban center. Over the period 2010 to 2020,
office-related industries are forecast to grow at an average annual
rate of 1.15% compared to Industrial at 2.19% per annum.
Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2010)
US Census (2010) Montana Workforce Informer 2012
Table 5.1: Montana Office Space Demand by 2020
With employment sector figures obtained through the most recent
2010 Census Data from the US Bureau of Statistics, the projected
number of new annual jobs within the office sector for the City of
Bozeman were calculated by using an average annual growth rates as
documented in Table 5.2.
Table 5.3 illustrates total cumulative office demand of approximately
462,000 sf for the City of Bozeman over the period 2012 to 2030
based on employment growth forecasts in office-related industries.
As a share of the Statewide demand over the time period 2012 to
2020, the Bozeman Office Demand Through Employment Growth
figure equate to 200,500 sf or 6.4%.
Montana Project Office Demand By Office-Related Industry Sector
Total
Employment
Gain
2013-2020
Total Demand
by 2020
(200sf / emp)
Office & Administrative Support 4,053 810,600
Personal Care & Service 1,729 345,800
Education, Training & Library 973 194,600
Healthcare 4,291 858,200
Business & Financial Operations 1,442 288,400
Computer & Mathematical 728 145,600
Community & Social Services 707 141,400
Management 721 144,200
Architecture & Engineering 651 130,200
Legal 259 51,800
Projected Demand in Office Space by 2020:15,5543,110,800
Office Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN44
46
Region 2 (Including Bozeman)
Industry Employment Projections
growth
10 to 20
Forecast
2011201220132014201520162017201820192020
INDUSTRIAL Administrative and support and waste
management and remediation services 3.10%680701723745768792816842868895
INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing 2.10%1,0211,0421,0641,0871,1091,1331,1561,1811,2051,231
INDUSTRIAL Transportation & Warehousing 1.60%9379529679839981,0141,0311,0471,0641,081
INDUSTRIAL Wholesale trade 1.30%710719728738747757767777787797
LEISURE Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1.80%394401408416423431439447455463
LEISURE Other services (except public
administration and government)1.40%711721731742752763773784795806
LEISURE Retail trade 1.00%5,1335,1855,2365,2895,3425,3955,4495,5045,5595,614
LEISURE Accommodation and food services 1.00%3,2313,2633,2963,3293,3623,3963,4303,4643,4993,534
OFFICE Professional, scientific, and technical
services 2.00%2,0112,0522,0932,1352,1772,2212,2652,3112,3572,404
OFFICE Finance & Insurance 1.40%1,2491,2671,2851,3031,3211,3391,3581,3771,3961,416
OFFICE Health care and social assistance 1.40%3,1873,2313,2773,3223,3693,4163,4643,5123,5623,611
OFFICE Real estate and rental and leasing 1.20%449455460466471477483489494500
OFFICE Educational services 0.40%206207208208209210211212213213
OFFICE Information -0.80%564560555551546542538533529525
SUMMARY Industrial Employment Industries 2.19%2,6382,6952,7542,8142,8762,9393,0043,0703,1373,206
SUMMARY Office Employment Industries 1.15%12,65612,80212,94913,09813,24813,40113,55513,71113,86914,028
SUMMARY Retail & Leisure Industries 0.41%1,2741,2791,2831,2891,2941,2991,3051,3101,3161,322
Table 5.2: Bozeman Office Employment Growth Forecasts
Office Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |45
47
2012201320142015202020252030
Projected Total Population 95,54798,715101,988105,370116,130126,590136,373
Projected Annual
Population Growth 3,0663,1683,2733,3822,2372,1652,015
Office Demand in Bozeman
(sf)*45,99047,52049,09550,73033,55532,47530,231
*Factoring 15 sq ft of office space per capita for the City of Bozeman
(current ratio is extremely high at over 100 sf/capita)
Projected Bozeman Office Demand By Population Growth in Gallatin County
2012-2030 Total Office Space Demand (sf)
658,386
2011 20,457
2012 20,807
2013 21,163
2014 21,524
2015 21,891
2016 22,265
2017 22,644
2018 23,029
2019 23,421
2020 23,819
2021 24,224
2022 24,635
2023 25,053
2024 25,478
2025 25,909
2026 26,348
2027 26,794
2028 27,248
2029 27,708
2030 28,177
Total 2012-2030 462,138
Projected Increase in Office Space Demand (sf)
from Previous Year - Bozeman
Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2010) US Census (2010)
Table 5.4: Bozeman Office Demand by Population Growth
Table 5.3: Bozeman Office Demand by Employment Growth
Similar to the approach used in forecasting office demand through employment growth, Table 5.4 illustrates the demand as forecast using
population growth applied against a more sensitized per capita office
space ratio.
The current office space ratio of 100 sf per capita for the City of
Bozeman and more applicable the 40 sf per capita for Gallatin County in
combination with the current market dynamics of high vacancy suggest
a lower ratio of office space per capita should be applied. Accordingly,
Table 4.10 uses an office space ratio of 15 sf per capita in forecasting
demand by population growth.
Accordingly, the total office demand over the period 2012 to 2030
could be in the range of 659,000 sf for the City of Bozeman.
As with the retail demand, a blended average of the two demand
forecasts is next calculated against which a potential market share of
total demand could be applied in determining the reasonable and
feasible amount of office space for North Park.
Office Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN46
48
To isolate the appropriate and feasible share of office demand that
could be achieved at North Park, a market share sensitivity was
applied. In this regard, the base level against which the market share
was applied reflects the blended average annual demand as
determined through Employment Growth and Population Growth.
Using this base level of demand, sensitivities ranging from 20% to
35% over time were applied to determine the optimal amount of
office space for North Park, as detailed in Table 5.5. In applying these
sensitivities, the project’s site and size as well as the optimal format
in order to be unique and competitive in the market were considered
as important qualitative inputs.
For example, given the current vacancy in the market and other
competitive projects, in particular near the University and around
Bozeman Gateway, it is not conceivable that office development and
thus a higher market share of cumulative demand would be
warranted early in the development process.
Furthermore, Downtown Bozeman is the primary cluster for office
space, whereby suburban office space has been limited primarily to
the Innovation Campus at the Montana State University, and other
“pod” format clusters.
However, over time as the market stabilizes, a minimum critical mass
of office space could be introduced in the range of 50,000 sf by 2018,
growing to 160,000 sf by 2030.
It is expected that the type office users and space at North Park
would likely have a synergistic relationship with other land uses and
could possibly comprise smaller formats of buildings ranging in size
from one to two storeys. Additionally, as will be seen in the industrial
demand, office space could also be integrated within light industrial
``flex`` type buildings, whereby office uses provide the face or front of
the development, while the back areas serve functions for smaller
warehousing and wholesaling activities.
Approximately 160,000 SF of
Office Space could be feasible at
North Park by the year 2030 Table 5.5: Office Demand for North Park Site
Mandeville Properties Feasible Cumulative Office Space Variable Marketshare
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Bozeman Demand
Blended Average (sf)33,39934,34135,31036,31126,65027,14727,64728,15828,68729,19229,204
Mandeville
Marketshare 20%20%20%25%25%25%25%25%30%35%35%
Mandeville Feasible
Office Space (sf)6,6806,8687,0629,0786,6626,7876,9127,0408,60610,21710,221
Cumulative (sf)6,68013,54820,61029,68836,35043,13750,04957,08865,694109,484 159,013
Office Market Analysis
North Park
North Park Feasible
North Park Properties Feasible Cumulative Office Space Variable Marketshare
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |47
49
Figure 5.2: Character Imagery of Office/Tech Business Park Formats
Office Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN48
50
SECTION 6.0
INDUSTRIAL MARKET ANALYSIS
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |49
51
Industrial Market Analysis
6.1 Industrial Market Overview
The City of Bozeman’s industrial sector comprises a mix of heavy
industrial, light industrial, light industrial/flex space (i.e. combined
with office space) and live/work warehouse formats. In 2011, the
total Industrial inventory was estimated at 2 million sf, averaging to
53 sf per capita. This per capita ratio is comparable to other similar
sized regional serving markets.
According to Grubb & Ellis, the overall industrial vacancy rate was
22% as of the third quarter of 2011. A further examination as
summarized in Figure 6.1 illustrates a vacancy that ranges from 7% in
the specialized High Tech R&D Sector to 15% in Manufacturing and
18% in Bulk Warehousing. Typically, a healthy industrial market
should have vacancy below 5%.
Either way, with the exception of High Tech R&D, the industrial market in Bozeman, which has notable competition elsewhere
within region currently represents a challenging market.
As illustrated in Figure 6.1, the averages asking lease rate for
industrial space has hovered around $5 - $6 per sf over the last 6
years. More specifically, Bulk Warehouse industrial space tends to
lease for an average of $4 per sf, Manufacturing $4.75 per sf and High
Tech R&D at $7.75 per sf. Generally, the higher vacancy rates have
caused the average asking lease rates to be lower in this real estate
sector.
Therefore, the future demand forecasts for North Park should be
cognizant of this in looking outside of the traditional market for
potential economic development-driven users or target sectors.
Source: Grubb & Ellis (Q3, 2011) City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan (2009)
NAI Landmark Realty Metropolitan Area Market Overview, January 2012
Figure 6.1: Bozeman Industrial Lease Rate Trends
Industrial Low High Avg Vacancy
Bulk Warehouse $3.75 $4.75 $4.25 18.0%
Manufacturing $4.25 $5.00 $4.75 15.0%
High Tech R&D $6.50 $9.00 $7.75 7.0%
2.0 million SF of
Industrial Space
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN50
52
One of the top businesses in the Bozeman market that demands
industrial space is the local Manufacturing Industry. As of 2009, there
were approximately 238 firms in Bozeman that manufactured a range
of products including wood furniture, athletic gear, apparel,
computer/electronic products and fabricated metal products.
Some of the major manufacturing companies include Simms Fishing
Products, West Paw Design, Gibson’s Guitar (Montana Division) and
Mystery Ranch. Mystery Ranch manufactures backpacks for outdoor
recreational activities such as skiing, snowboarding, military, hunting
and mountain climbing, earning 90% of their revenues from outside
of the State of Montana.
One of the most significant attributes of the North Park site is its
proximity to existing industrial land uses, but also its access to
potential rail and highway goods movement. These factors will be
significant in helping to mitigate potential weaknesses in the current
market performance as they may make the site attractive not just for
new-to-market users, but also potential existing users in Bozeman,
Belgrade or elsewhere for whom their current location or size is
inadequate.
One of the largest heavy industrial competitive industrial clusters is
located northwest of North Park in the City of Belgrade. The Bruce
Industrial Park, (estimated at 350 acres) is located 6.9 miles west of
North Park (refer to Figure 6.2). Interestingly, the well-established
Bruce Industrial Park has a very similar configuration and I-90
frontage as the North Park site, with a wrap-around I-90 frontage on
the west and east sides of the Park and major rail spur running along
the north perimeter of the site.
Belgrade &
Bruce Industrial Park represent a
competitive Industrial Land Base
Tenants of Bruce Industrial Park include:
•Dynojet Research Inc. •Aqua Tech •Habitat Restore
•Warren Transport •Big Sky Installations •All Pro Composites
In addition to the existing light industrial, flex and warehouse
inventory, Bruce Industrial Park is largest industrial land base in close
proximity (2.7 miles) to the Bozeman Yellowstone Int’l Airport.
Generally, Bruce Industrial Park is old and poorly maintained.
Compared to industrial developments within the City of Bozeman,
Bruce Industrial Park and surrounding land uses have limited to no
design guidelines and have been developed in a haphazard ad hoc
fashion. Therein lies an opportunity for North Park to create a higher
quality mix of land uses and not replicating the Bruce Industrial Park.
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |51
53
6.9 miles (6 minute drive)
Figure 6.2: Competitive Industrial Inventory - Bruce Industrial Park
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN52
54
Despite the physical similarities between North Park and Bruce
Industrial Park, the North Park site has an excellent opportunity to
capitalize on the proximity to the Bozeman Yellowstone International
Airport and related activities. Bruce Industrial Park has available,
serviced land predominantly for heavy industrial-related land uses
that require outdoor storage as well as a few sites prime for
redevelopment. However, North Park has a unique opportunity to
plan a higher quality and economic-specific cluster of activities that
can feed into the greater Bozeman Airport Village, founded on the
strong entrepreneur culture and manufacturing industries already
existing in Bozeman.
6.2 Foreign Trade Zones
Harnessing the economic activity already occurring at the airport and
the intermodal activities between rail and road, there is a unique
opportunity to consider a Freeport or Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) at
North Park. They are used for the purpose of establishing a duty-free
(or reduced duty payment) fenced-in space for warehousing, storage,
distribution facilities, assembly, manufacturing, testing, exhibition or
other value-added services.
This land use tool would provide a foundation to grow the economic
pillars of Bozeman, create a new and well-planned employment node
and generate economic benefits for the region.
FTZ’s must be located within or adjacent to a US Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) port of entry, or within 60 miles of the outer limits of
a CBP, or within 90 minutes driving time from the outer limits of a
CBP.
The alternative types of trade zones (such as an Enterprise Zone) do
not have these distance/time restrictions (although other restrictions
may apply). The North Park site falls well within the US Customs
regulations for port of entry proximity.
Currently, there are close to 300 general-purpose FTZs in the United
States. Not all FTZs need to encompass vast tracts of lands. In fact,
the US allows for FTZ subzones whereby one individual company on
one parcel of land creates an FTZ for the sole purpose of that
individual company.
Sometimes, companies that are looking for a FTZ will not find space
or a suitable location to meet their needs so they either go through a
state-process to establish a trade zone (such as the Enterprise Zone
program by the State of Colorado) or a federal-process to establish a
FTZ subzone.
Foreign Trade Zones are catalysts to
regional economic development
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |53
55
6.3 Industrial Demand Quantification
Using the current industrial supply and market performance metrics
as well as the forecasted growth in employment and population
growth, the estimated demand for new office space was calculated,
using two scenarios – “Industrial Demand Through Employment
Growth” and “Industrial Demand Through Population Growth”.
Projected industrial space demand is calculated by the growth in
major employment sectors that utilize industrial space such as
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, among other industries.
Table 6.2 highlights the industrial employment sector industries and
the forecasted growth rates as projected for Region 2, in which
Bozeman serves as the largest urban center. Over the period 2010 to
2020, office-related industries are forecast to grow at an average
annual rate of 2.19% per annum, which is the best performing of the
overall employment sectors (Office, Industrial, Leisure).
Moreover, within the Industrial Employment Sector, the category of
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and
Remediation Services are forecast to grow at 3.10% per annum over
the period 2010 to 2020.
With employment sector figures obtained through the most recent
2010 Census Data from the US Bureau of Statistics, the projected
number of new annual jobs within the industrial sector for the City of
Bozeman were calculated by using an average annual growth rates as
documented in Table 6.2.
Bozeman’s industrial market is very regional in scope and could in
fact be even larger if economic development driven opportunities
present themselves. As such, the employment base is sourced to
Gallatin County for the majority of its workforce in which case the
forecasting models use employment growth and population growth
for Gallatin County as critical inputs.
Table 6.1 illustrates total cumulative industrial demand of
approximately 1.58 million sf for the City of Bozeman over the period
2012 to 2030 based on employment growth forecasts in industrial-
related industries.
2011 65,892
2012 67,375
2013 68,895
2014 70,452
2015 72,048
2016 73,683
2017 75,358
2018 77,075
2019 78,835
2020 80,639
2021 82,487
2022 84,382
2023 86,324
2024 88,315
2025 90,356
2026 92,447
2027 94,592
2028 96,791
2029 99,045
2030 101,356
Total 2012-2030 1,580,454
Projected Increase in Industrial Space Demand
(sf) from Previous Year - Bozeman
Table 6.1: Bozeman Industrial Demand by Employment Growth
Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2010) US Census (2010)
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN54
56
Region 2 (Including Bozeman)
Industry Employment Projections
growth
10 to 20
Forecast
2011201220132014201520162017201820192020
INDUSTRIAL Administrative and support and waste
management and remediation services 3.10%680701723745768792816842868895
INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing 2.10%1,0211,0421,0641,0871,1091,1331,1561,1811,2051,231
INDUSTRIAL Transportation & Warehousing 1.60%9379529679839981,0141,0311,0471,0641,081
INDUSTRIAL Wholesale trade 1.30%710719728738747757767777787797
LEISURE Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1.80%394401408416423431439447455463
LEISURE Other services (except public
administration and government)1.40%711721731742752763773784795806
LEISURE Retail trade 1.00%5,1335,1855,2365,2895,3425,3955,4495,5045,5595,614
LEISURE Accommodation and food services 1.00%3,2313,2633,2963,3293,3623,3963,4303,4643,4993,534
OFFICE Professional, scientific, and technical
services 2.00%2,0112,0522,0932,1352,1772,2212,2652,3112,3572,404
OFFICE Finance & Insurance 1.40%1,2491,2671,2851,3031,3211,3391,3581,3771,3961,416
OFFICE Health care and social assistance 1.40%3,1873,2313,2773,3223,3693,4163,4643,5123,5623,611
OFFICE Real estate and rental and leasing 1.20%449455460466471477483489494500
OFFICE Educational services 0.40%206207208208209210211212213213
OFFICE Information -0.80%564560555551546542538533529525
SUMMARY Industrial Employment Industries 2.19%2,6382,6952,7542,8142,8762,9393,0043,0703,1373,206
SUMMARY Office Employment Industries 1.15%12,65612,80212,94913,09813,24813,40113,55513,71113,86914,028
SUMMARY Retail & Leisure Industries 0.41%1,2741,2791,2831,2891,2941,2991,3051,3101,3161,322
Table 6.2: Bozeman Industrial Employment Growth Forecasts
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |55
57
2012201320142015202020252030
Projected Total Population 95,54798,715101,988105,370116,130126,590136,373
Projected Annual
Population Growth 3,0663,1683,2733,3822,2372,1652,015
Industrial Demand in
Bozeman (sf)*153,300158,400163,650169,100111,850108,250100,769
*Factoring 50 sq ft of office space per capita for the City of Bozeman
(current ratio is eestimated at 53 sf/capita)
2012-2030 Total Industrial Space Demand (sf)
2,194,619
Projected Bozeman Industrial Demand By Population Growth in Gallatin County
Source: Montana Department of Labor & Industry (2010)
US Census (2010)
Table 6.3: Bozeman Industrial Demand by Population Growth
Similar to the approach used in forecasting office demand through
employment growth, Table 6.3 illustrates the demand as forecast
through using population growth applied against a more sensitized per
capita industrial space ratio.
The current industrial space ratio of 53 sf per capita for the City of
Bozeman in combination with the current market dynamics of high
vacancy, but critical advantages of rail and highway accessibility and
proximity suggest a slightly lower ratio of industrial space per capita
should be applied.
Accordingly, Table 6.3 uses an industrial space ratio of 50 sf per capita
in forecasting demand by population growth resulting in total industrial
demand over the period 2012 to 2030 in the range of 2.2 million sf for
the City of Bozeman.
As with the retail demand, a blended average of the two demand forecasts is next calculated against which potential market share of total demand could be applied in determining the reasonable and feasible amount of office space for North Park.
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN56
58
To isolate the appropriate and feasible share of industrial demand
that could be achieved at North Park, a market share sensitivity was
applied. In this regard, the base level against which the market share
was applied reflects the blended average annual demand as
determined through Employment Growth and Population Growth.
Using this base level of demand, sensitivities ranging from 25% to
40% over time were applied to determine the optimal amount of
office space for North Park, as detailed in Table 6.4. In applying these
sensitivities, the project’s site and size as well as the optimal format
in order to be unique and competitive in the market were considered
as important qualitative inputs, as well as the potential to integrate
rail spurs into the development thereby creating a distinct point of
difference for the development.
Although the figures in Table 6.4 reflect new demand, it is entirely
possible that the site attributes at North Park could lure existing
tenants from elsewhere in Bozeman or Belgrade or beyond. Any
potential relocation of tenants could provide the indirect effect of
inducing the market-driven demand sooner than later at North Park.
That being said however, Industrial demand for new space is forecast to reach enough critical mass (i.e. greater than 100,000 sf) within 5 years or by 2016.
Over time as the market stabilizes, industrial demand at North Park could grow from 20,000 sf in 2012 to 617,000 sf by 2030.
It is expected that the type industrial users and space at North Park will comprise a mix of larger single user tenants as well as multi-
tenant light industrial formats. It is recommended that the larger industrial users limit the amount of outdoor storage so that the overall image of the entire North Park site can be perceived and regarded as a higher quality amenity-driven environment with a complementary supporting mix of land uses, such as Office, Retail and Hotel. ”Flex” formats that include warehouse space in the rear,
but also may include street grade office or retail-compatible space (e.g. Café, Gymnastics, Daycare, Catering etc.) along the front edges of the building are also envisioned to be critical in the land use mix.
Approximately 620,000 SF of
Industrial Space could be feasible
at North Park by the year 2030 Table 6.4: Industrial Demand for North Park Site
Mandeville Properties Feasible Cumulative Industrial Space Variable Marketshare
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Bozeman Demand Blended
Average (sf)81,46183,80586,22088,70990,56192,45494,38896,36498,384108,473101,356
Mandeville Marketshare 25%25%25%30%30%30%30%30%35%40%40%
Mandeville Feasible Industrial
Space (sf)20,36520,95121,55526,61327,16827,73628,31628,90934,43543,38940,542
Cumulative (sf)20,36541,31662,87189,484116,652144,388172,705201,614236,048424,090 617,783
Industrial Market Analysis
North Park Marketshare
North Park Feasible Industrial
North Park Properties Feasible Cumulative Industrial Space Variable Marketshare
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |57
59
Figure 6.3 Character Imagery of Industrial Business Park Formats
Industrial Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN58
60
SECTION 7.0
HOTEL MARKET ANALYSIS
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |59
61
Hotel Market Analysis
7.1 Hotel Market Overview
To lay a foundation for the future potential demand quantification of
a hotel or hotels at North Park, an overview was conducted of the
Bozeman Hotel Sector.
As of April, 2012, the City of Bozeman has 2,008 Hotel Rooms in 26
properties, representing 31% of the total Bozeman/Yellowstone
Market’s hotel inventory (refer to Table 7.1). Figure 7.2 illustrates an
age breakdown of the hotel inventory in which aapproximately 55%
of Bozeman’s hotels were built after 1990, while 33% are older than
30 years.
Table 7.1 provides a list of hotel property names/brands and their
associated number of rooms and amount of meeting space, if
present.
This table is further organized into hotel classes/price points as
defined by Smith Travel Research as: upscale, upper midscale,
midscale, economy and independent. An analysis of the mix as
shown in Figure 7.1reveals that 30% of Bozeman’s hotel inventory is
represented by “Independent” hotels, such as the successful C’Mon
Inn, while a further 27% is represented by “Upper Midscale” brands
such as Comfort Inn, Fairfield Inn, Hampton Inn, Holiday Inn and Best
Western.
Since 2006, the historic annual occupancy in the
Bozeman/Yellowstone region has averaged 56.4%. In 2011, the
Bozeman region experienced an average annual occupancy of 55.4%,
while the year-to-date (2012) is up almost 3% over the same period
2011.
Source: Smith Travel Research (2012) McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge (2012)
Hotel Property Name/Brand Number of
Rooms
Meeting
Space
Date
Opened
UPSCALE
Hilton Garden Inn Bozeman 122 3,780 Nov-05
Homewood Suites Bozeman 102 1,800 Mar-10
Residence Inn Bozeman 115 600 Oct-07
UPPER MIDSCALE
Best Western Plus GranTree Inn 120 7,500 May-74
Comfort Inn Bozeman 121 4,330 May-92
Fairfield Inn Bozeman 57 Apr-92
Hampton Inn Bozeman 70 396 Apr-98
Holiday Inn Bozeman 177 6,400 Mar-69
MIDSCALE
La Quinta Inns & Suites Bozeman 56 Jun-10
Ramada Limited Bozeman 50 120 Jun-94
Wingate By Wyndham Bozeman 86 1,550 Apr-99
ECONOMY
Days Inn & Suites Bozeman 114 300 Jun-78
Microtel Inn & Suites Bozeman 61 720 Aug-01
Rodeway Inn Bozeman 56 Jun-94
Super 8 Bozeman 107 Mar-80
INDEPENDENT
Grand Hotel City Center 64 2,318 Jun-59
Rainbow Motel 42 Jun-65
Budget Inn 60 Jun-68
Lewis & Clark Motel 50 Jun-77
Royal 7 Budget Inn 47 Jun-70
The Bozeman Inn 49 Jun-72
Western Heritage Inn 36 950 Jun-84
TLC Inn 42 Jun-86
Blue Sky Motel 27 Jun-90
Bozeman Hotel 52 600 Jun-04
Cmon Inn 125 1,000 Oct-06
CURRENT TOTAL 2,00832,364
Comfort Inn 84 Mar-13
FUTURE 84 0
Table 7.1: Current & Future Bozeman Hotel Inventory
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN60
62
Approximately 2,008 Hotel Rooms
and 32,300 sf of
Meeting Room Space in Bozeman
Source: Smith Travel Research (2012) McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge (2012)
Figure 7.1: Bozeman Hotel Classes
Figure 7.2: Bozeman Total Hotels by Age
There are as many as 2 new hotels proposed in Bozeman’s downtown core as well as an 84-room Comfort Suites Inn (location as yet
undecided). Overall, Bozeman’s hotel market is stable with limited short term
demand for additional rooms other than for potential redeveloping or relocating of existing inventory.
The industry norm for annualized hotel occupancy should fall within the range of 60% to 65%, therefore the current market would have to improve the occupancy rates to justify another hotel addition in the
short term. This does not preclude an opportunity for North Park to build upon
the existing cluster of hotels located and accessed from Mandeville Drive, but that the demand would likely need to catch up in order to rationalize a hotel in that area.
Hotel Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |61
63
7.2 Hotel Demand Quantification
Over recent years, supply and demand levels have moved in
opposite directions, whereby occupancy rates have declined and
demand has slowed. Because of the extended slowdown of the
National economy, the short term outlook is for hotel demand
recovery, but not at a feverish pace as evidenced in 2007.
Recognizing a more modest outlook for the hotel sector over the
next 10 to 15 years, the current hotel supply vs demand in
Bozeman, as shown in Table 7.2 needs to improve so that
occupancy rates do not decline any further. Applying conservative
and stabilized growth in demand for hotels/motels at a blended rate
of 0.8% per annum (i.e. 0.9% for Leisure Segment growth and 0.4% for Commercial Segment growth) indicates that assuming no new
additions to the Bozeman hotel inventory, occupancy could
gradually recover and reach an industry acceptable benchmark of 60% by 2022 and beyond.
Table 7.2 illustrates the cumulative annual demand for hotel room
growth specifically for the City of Bozeman. It is important to
recognize that given the fact that Downtown is actively pursuing a
new hotel, any other hotel entrant into the Bozeman Market is likely
to come after this hotel has been absorbed into the market.
In time, as North Park develops and on-site demand generators are
more prevalent in the form of office and industrial properties as
well as a potential overpass, a hotel will become potentially more
attractive. In the short term however, a hotel is not feasible for
North Park.
Over the past few years, supply and demand for hotels/motels have
averaged slow, albeit stable growth throughout Montana as a result of the global and national economic downturn.
Assuming hotel occupancy rates grow as per estimated forecasts over
the period of 2012 to 2020 (and beyond), the results of the hotel
demand analysis reveal that another mid-priced hotel between 85
and 100 rooms, could be warranted by 2020 in the City of Bozeman.
As mentioned however, this demand is likely not going to be
warranted for North Park, but rather elsewhere in the City, most likely
in the Downtown.
Although average Bozeman hotel occupancy and historic supply and demand growth are critical inputs in determining future demand for a
hotel at North Park, the current age of the existing hotel
infrastructure should also be weighed. In this regard, many of the
current properties are older and in need of renovation and if
renovations do not occur, the warranted demand could be sped up by
a few years.
Ideally, occupancy rates would need to improve from their current
levels of 55% or lower to at least 60% for a new hotel operator to
realize feasibility in a market where supply is currently fulfilled,
particularly if operator is in the mid-market profile segment.
The stronger Family and Leisure Traveler segment to the region
suggests a market positioning for a Mid-Priced Hotel with or without
F&B or extended stay format. Refer to Figures 7.3 & 7.4 for
representative hotel brands and formats that could fit the envisioned positioning profile.
Another potential catalyst for a hotelier at North Park could be the
role of Sports Tourism in relation to and envisioned outdoor and
indoor leisure and recreational amenity that could be developed on
the site or in proximity.
Hotel Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN62
64
20112012201320142015202020252030
2,0082,0082,0922,0922,0922,0922,0922,092
410,435414,232418,065421,934425,841445,946467,035489,158
Leisure 85%348,870352,359355,882359,441363,035381,554401,017421,473
Commercial 15%61,56561,87362,18262,49362,80664,39266,01867,685
Total 100%410,435414,232418,065421,934425,841445,946467,035489,158
732,920734,928763,580763,580763,580765,672765,672765,672
0 10111111111212
0 1021324297155216
Occupancy Growth
Indicating Hotel
Opportunity Years
56.0%56.4%54.8%55.3%55.8%58.2%61.0%63.9%
Source: MXD Development Strategists 2012, Smith Travel Research Market Pipeline Report and Geographic Tract Analysis 2006 - YTD April 2012
HOTEL ROOM DEMAND
Note: 2012, 2016 & 2020 represent Leap Years and therefore have 366 days against which supply is calculated
Forecasted Occupancy as estimated by MXD Development Strategists reflecting historic average and industry standard given the Estevan Market profile.
Projected Yellowstone/Bozeman
Room Nights Supply
Projected Yellowstone/Bozeman
Room Demand
Yellowstone/Bozmeman
Hotel Room Inventory
Cumulative Annual
New Yellowstone/Bozeman
Room Demand
Incremental Annual
New Yellowstone/Bozeman
Room Demand
Table 7.2: Hotel Demand for Bozeman
Hotel Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |63
65
Having identified the overall citywide demand for a potential hotel,
the next step is to apply a market share sensitivity against the
cumulative demand to in fact determine when a potential hotel could
be developed at North Park.
It would be difficult for a hotel at North Park to garner more than 50%
of the market share, particularly if another hotel or two is being
targeted for Downtown.
Therefore, as demonstrated in Table 7.3 using market shares ranging
from 40% in the early years to 45% and 50% in later years, North Park
could support a hotel ranging from 75 to 115 rooms during the period
2025 to 2030.
However, because there are still many older sub-standard hotels in
the market, the demand could be potentially quicker than stated, but
this would be largely dependent upon whether the hotel closed or
undergoes a renovation/redevelopment.
Table 7.3: Hotel Demand for North Park Site
20122013201420152016201720182019202020252030
Bozeman Incremental Annual
Demand (Rooms)1011111111111111111212
MANDEVILLE PARCEL
Marketshare 40%40%40%40%45%45%45%45%50%55%60%
Incremental MANDEVILLE
Parcel Feasible Hotel Rooms 44445555667
Cumulative (Hotel Rooms)48 1317222732374272115
Mandeville Properties Feasible Cumulative Hotel Market Share of Visitor Demand (Yellowstone - Bozeman Market Tract)
Approximately 72 to 115 Hotel Rooms
or 1 Hotel could be feasible
at North Park between the years
2025 to 2030
Hotel Market Analysis
NORTH PARK PARCEL
North Park Properties Feasible Cumulative Hotel Marketshare of Visitor Demand (Yellowstone - Bozeman Market Tract)
NORTH PARK
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN64
66
Luxury Boutique
Lifestyle Concept
½
½
Figure 7.3: Hotel Family Trees Part A
Hotel Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |65
67
½
½
Figure 7.4: Hotel Family Trees Part B
Hotel Market Analysis
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN66
68
SECTION 8.0
RECREATION SECTOR OVERVIEW
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |67
69
Recreational Sector Overview
8.1 Recreation Sector Summary
Based on the Active Community Culture of Bozeman and confirmed
by the City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan, there will be
strong demand for active recreational facilities over the next two
decades.
The City of Bozeman prepared a recreational needs assessment based
on population projections, revealing the number of facilities required
per recreational categories. As illustrated in Figure 8.1 the most
needed facilities are Tennis, Baseball Fields and Soccer Fields at 44
courts, 25 diamonds and 35 pitches respectively.
For these sports an indoor component or facility could provide a
significant value added amenity not just locally but regionally and
statewide for attracting tournaments and for higher profile athlete
training.
Some recreational facilities require larger tracts of land than others,
and some facilities are best situated in an urban environment vs
suburban environment, and some are best located within residential
areas at a neighborhood scale, and others are best located in a
regional destination location.
For example, tennis courts can be stand-alone parks that fit in with a
residential suburb that do not require a large number of parking
stalls, whereas soccer fields require more land for both the play area
and parking lot.
North Park could be a potential location for a Regional Tournament
and Recreational Complex Park because of the land area size,
location and visibility/exposure.
Source: Bozeman Economic Development Plan (2009)
Figure 8.1: Bozeman Community Recreational Needs by 2025
Regional Recreation Parks often consist of both indoor and outdoor
recreational facilities. Considering that Bozeman does have a colder
and precipitous winter climate, providing an Indoor Soccer Facility
(refer to following case study examples) is a great potential amenity
for the community, where leagues can play and practice during all
seasons.
In addition, potential Regional Recreation Parks generate demand for
complimentary commercial and retail development both onsite and
offsite. As such, recreational amenities within North Park could
benefit businesses located at the existing commercial, retail and hotel
clusters adjacent to the site as well as create opportunities for new,
small businesses onsite to cater to the onsite foot traffic.
Finally, Regional Recreation Parks are a welcomed City anchor that
can form a clean, well-designed City corridor entrance, forming an
impressive first sense of community.
Regional Recreation Parks
require large tracts of land
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN68
70
INDOOR MULTI-SPORT RECREATION
East Hants Sportsplex, Halifax, Canada
Location: Lantz, Nova Scotia Canada
Population of East Hants: 23,387 (2006) Regionally,
population is around 400,000.
Location Context: Close proximity to Halifax Regional Municipality and the Stanfield International Airport, in one of
Atlantic Canada’s fastest growing communities.
Site: Approximately 4.5 acres
Indoor Soccer Expansion is a $15.9-million facility
Opened: 1993
Features:
A full Size Indoor Multi-Purpose Field House.
Dividable artificial field surface for a variety of sports
including: soccer, football, lawn bowling, ultimate frisbee, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse etc.
Seating capacities: 230 & 900
2 Regulation Size Arenas
5 Hotels in the area
Recently expanded Sportsplex includes second ice surface, field house that can accommodate three small soccer fields, 400m walking/running track, community meeting room with seating for 100; board room capable of seating 25; full food service; lounge area with couches, chairs, etc.; room for coaches with video equipment and other features to assist with game preparations; and a pro shop.
The province, through the departments of Health and
Wellness, and Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations committed $5.3-million and $1-million, respectively. The Government of Canada provided $2-million from the Major
Infrastructure Component of the Building Canada Fund, and $1-million from the Innovative Communities Fund led by ACOA. The Municipality of East Hants and the East Hants
Arena Association shared the remaining project costs.
Recreational Sector Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |69
71
INDOOR MULTI-SPORT RECREATION
Northern Sports Center, Prince George, Canada
Location Context: Adjacent to the University of Northern BC
Population of Prince George: 71,030 (2006)
Opened: 1993
Size: 145,100 sf
JV Partnership: City and the University of Northern BC
Features:
Indoor Field Houses (90 x 190 feet)
Track and Straightaway
280m track
80m straightaway
Gymnasium
22,000 sf
3 basketball courts
Seating capacity: 2,000
Training
Weight and cardio rooms
Studio for aerobics, dance, yoga
Ventilated Wax room/rifle storage
Sport Medicine and physiotherapy
Connection to a major trail network
Other facilities
Two squash courts
Locker rooms & storage facilities
Health bar
Multipurpose room (meeting space)
Recreational Sector Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN70
72
INDOOR MULTI-SPORT RECREATION
Pacific Institute for Sports Excellence, Victoria, BC, Canada
Location Context: Suburban Victoria, adjacent to Camosun College
Population of Greater Victoria: 330,088 (2006)
Concept description: Bringing sports education, community
recreation/programs and athlete development under one roof.
Opened: 2008
Building Footprint: 40,000 sf
Size: 80,000+ sf
Development Partners: Camosun College, Canadian Sports
Center Pacific, and Pacific Sport Victoria
Features:
Alex Campbell Field (Outdoor)
Fully lit, Artificial turf field
Gymnasium
14,800 sf
Two full size basketball courts, retractable
dividers & collapsing bleachers.
Movement Studio: 2,800 sf
Fitness Center: 3,000 sf
Available to the entire community.
High Performance Area: 2,800 sf
Classrooms for theory and applied purposes.
Additional Infrastructure details: certified LEED Gold through
the Canada Green Building Council.
Recreational Sector Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |71
73
Figure 8.2: Character Imagery of Regional Recreation Parks & Complexes
Recreational Sector Overview
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN72
74
9.0 LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |73
75
Land Use Development Strategy
9.1 Land Use Development Strategy Overview This section builds upon the land use demand forecasts with the recommended project market positioning, taking into account the
competitive commercial retail, office, industrial and hotel infrastructure existing and proposed within the City of Bozeman. The objective is to establish a development project at the city’s edge that is appealing to the surrounding residential communities and employment nodes as well as capture the commuter vehicle traffic
and consumer interest from the transient population.
The land use and development strategy will focus on the optimal
program in order to achieve the highest and best use of the North Park site, while attempting to ensure viable residual land values at such time that demand in the market has stabilized in terms of vacancies and achievable lease rates. Accordingly the development program allocation reflects a back-and-forth process of working with a financial analysis and the demand allocation to identify a
land use mix that over the long term can be supportable by market demand as well as financially viable over time. Working with CTA Landworks who have prepared a Concept Layout Plan, the land use market demand forecasts have been fine tuned to fit within the confines and identified parcels as laid out in the Concept Plan.
The Development Strategy for North Park attempts to fill in the current void that occupies the center of the City and which has land
owned by both the City of Bozeman and the DNRC. In creating a vision for the site over the next 20 years, both the City
and DNRC could harness and leverage the site’s attributes and mitigate its weaknesses in generating revenue as well as social value through the creation of an employment center and potential
recreational connectivity point.
“Connecting & Expanding” Bozeman
The North Park Opportunity
9.2 North Park Positioning Strategy
Recognizing the land use demand summary and the identified points-
of-difference necessary to make North Park a success, Table 9.1
summarizes each land use’s Target Market, Price Point and overall
Positioning. The North Park project’s over-arching positioning strategy
should be to:
Provide a regional employment center and job creation hub
comprising a mix of land uses. Allow for the introduction of shops
and services that will firstly cater to the emerging workforce, then
secondarily to the local and wider trade area residents. Utilize the extensive highway frontage, mountain backdrops and existing parks
and cycling networks to promote full connectivity to, from and
within North Park, so that all roads truly do lead to North Park.
The design standards should reflect an emphasis on 360 degree
architecture so that building siting and design is unique and
compatible with the surrounding community and avoids replicating
another Bruce Industrial Park.
The Bozeman market itself is relatively small, despite its regional
draw, therefore a careful phasing strategy is critical to ensure success,
achieve maximum value, but most importantly to not negatively or
adversely impact the existing fabric of Bozeman and further
perpetuate the vacancy and lease rate conditions that exist today.
There are multiple objectives in phasing that must be accounted for
including: creating an amenity to sell housing, creating critical mass,
avoiding market saturation, providing flexibility, and retaining strategic
parcels for future and other considerations.
In order to lay a foundation for the most optimal phasing strategy, the
Concept Plan as prepared by CTA Landworks illustrates the conceptual
allocation of the land uses into respective Parcels against which land
use allocation, development costs and subsequent residual land
valuation can be determined.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN74
76
Land Use
Target Market, Price Point & Positioning
Industrial Target Market
Price Point
Positioning
Incubator for Statewide and Regional Economic Development Drivers, Manufacturing and potential
logistics
Combination of large users and multi-tenant warehouse/office “flex” space
Business Park environment
Retail Target Market
Price Point
Positioning
Tenant Mix catering to firstly the North Park Lands Employment Center then upon potential
introduction of overpass to wider Bozeman City and Gallatin County
Value Price Point
Local and Community-Scale Shops & Services with Food & Beverage and potential future symbiotic
entertainment and recreation uses
Office Target Market
Price Point
Positioning
Medical/Health/Wellness Services, Professional Services,
Smaller user segments ranging from 500 sf to 3,000 sf
Multi-Tenant Office Space in Freestanding 1, 2 or 3-Story Office Building formats or as integrated
into Multi-Tenant Flex Light Industrial Buildings to provide diversity in offering
Hotel Target Market
Price Point
Positioning
Regional Event & Sports Tourism Patrons and Business Travelers
Potential University related
Value to Mid Scale Price Point with or without Food & Beverage or Extended Stay, Family Friendly
2 to 3 Star Branded Hotel
Table 9.1 Target Market, Price Point & Positioning Summary
Land Use Development Strategy
9.3 North Park Demand & Phasing Summary
A summary of the total demand over the period 2012 to 2030 is
provided in Table 9.2 and reflects the analysis of Retail, Office,
Industrial and Hotel land uses. It is important to state that demand
for the full land uses, particularly industrial extends beyond the
market-driven threshold of 2030 and is contingent on economic-
development driven initiatives reaching outside of the regional
context (e.g. Statewide). The key principle behind the phasing
strategy is to create catalytic development while ensuring that the
impact on existing businesses is kept to a minimum while still
responding to potential new demand
Phase 1 The project is based on a phased development premised around the
introduction of as much as 465,000 sf of industrial in the latter stages of Phase 1 (on approximately 45 acres), likely in the first 5-year window.
The formats would be expected to comprise larger single tenant users (e.g. Manufacturing and Logistics) for whom rail spur access
(pending the phasing and timing of rail spur development) would be deemed a significant asset and may thus allow for a premium on achievable lease rates, above and beyond today’s current low lease
rates.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |75
77
The phasing can take advantage of servicing and access from the
north end of the site at a new Red Wing Drive which will serve as the
main internal vehicle artery for the development.
Although the current vacancy in the industrial market is high, the
locational attributes and potential to attract users with a Statewide or
even Intermountain West catchment utilizing the highway and rail
signify a strong opportunity and foundation for job creation and
attraction of potential new industries.
Phase 2
The introduction of almost 100,000 sf of office space comprising a
potential 6 acre Business Park is programmed for Phase 2 in the next
5 year window from 2012. The location of the office buildings are
envisioned to back onto the green belt and thus provide an amenity
for office users, while providing a compatible buffering land use to
this more sensitive area. Some of this office space may be in a
freestanding format while the majority, may comprise office space
in multi-tenant light industrial “flex” formats.
A further 205,000 sf of light industrial comprising more multi-tenant
formats and “flex” users on approximately 15 acres is planned in
Phase 2 to provide a more balanced industrial composition as well as
a more seamless transition to softer commercial land uses
approaching Mandeville Drive.
Phase 3
Once the industrial (large single user and multi-tenant) and most of
the office land uses have been allocated, sold or potentially
developed, the next Phase of the development proposes to complete
the arterial connection to Mandeville Drive by developing the
remainder of the office component (34,000 sf on 2.5 acres) at the
northeast corner of Mandeville Drive and the new inner arterial.
In the event that the Phase 2 Office development comprises a more
light industrial “flex” format, then this smaller office component
could be a transitional area in which further light industrial flex, or
additional self storage (adjacent to existing self storage) or
freestanding office could be developed.
By the time Phase 3 comes on stream, the suburban office market
may have reached a point whereby vacancies have lowered and lease
rates have increased thus creating a more viable “pure” office
development.
Though shown as a Phase 3 component, the retail piece comprising 63,750 sf on 6.5 acres at the northwest corner of Mandeville Drive
and the new inner arterial, could be a piece that is developed in
Phase 2. However, with a mix that is envisioned to comprise Limited
Service Food & Beverage as well as local shops and services for the
industrial and office workers it is important that this not be
developed ahead of any necessary demand drivers.
Hotel uses for North Park should be re-evaluated after approximately
10 years to determine if demand still warrants a potential hotel
development in the range of 100 rooms. There is inherent flexibility in the demand and land allocation to potentially accommodate shifts
in other land uses if the market dictates such, most notably in office
or retail.
Moreover, as Phase 3 develops the potential for a new overpass
connecting Mandeville Drive to Baxter Lane could become necessary
to allow for more seamless commuter movement as well as general
vehicle and pedestrian connectivity with N 19th Ave.
Phase 4
The final phase of the development retains the highest profile and
visible land fronting I-90 for such time that development along N19th
Ave as well as Bozeman Gateway could be built out. Additionally, any
retail development as proposed (187,000 sf on 19 acres) along this
stretch would be very dependent on a new overpass which isn’t
expected until Phase 3.
Land Use Development Strategy
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN76
78
The recreational land use shown in Phase 4, envisioned to be an
indoor and outdoor combined sports facility could be developed
earlier as an interim or transitional land use for longer term higher
and best use. While likely to not be developed privately, but more as
a joint venture, potential P3 (Public-Private-Partnership), a
recreational component, given Bozeman’s strong recreational culture
could well become a long term fixture at North Park.
9.4 Comparison of Market Demand to Development
Capacity
Table 9.2 provides a comparison of the Market-driven Demand
Forecasts to the year 2030 for Retail, Office, Industrial and Hotel to
the actual development program potential as summarized in Table
9.3.
The purpose of the comparison is to illustrate how the market shares
applied for quantifying demand for each applicable land use
correspond with the land use potential and development capacity of
North Park.
In particular, Table 9.2 highlights that by 2030, there is forecast to be
much more industrial site capacity (1,258,500 sf) than market
demand (617,700 sf) by 640,00 sf. The nature of industrial development in terms of formats and potential to lure economic-
development driven demand (as opposed to market-driven demand)
suggests that this level of variance would require additional stimulus
and regional or most likely statewide catalytic development.
Conversely, with Retail it is important to work with the complexities
of tenant-driven and consumer demand in balancing the amount of
space that could or should be developed at North Park.
Retail, Office and Hotel when comparing the 2030 Market-Driven demand to the site carrying capacity illustrates a largely balanced
picture, though the market in its current status with higher vacancy
rates will still need to recover before initial developments are
economically viable, thus illustrating the less aggressive amount of
traditional “pure” office space.
The Market Demand for office at 160,000 sf is higher than that shown in the land capacity for traditional office space. However, it is envisioned that office space will also occupy “flex” type Light Industrial formats, thereby accommodating some of the forecasted demand.
Therefore, the Phases identified are not necessarily tied to any specific year horizons.
9.4 North Park Land Use Allocation by Parcel
Table 9.4 outlines in detail the land use allocation for each parcel and
its optimal land use. In particular, the table highlights the potential net developable area taking into account typical parking, circulation, landscaping requirements as well as typical building footprints and densities that would be most achievable for North Park. In summary, Table 9.4 illustrates that on the gross site area of 95.5 acres, a total of 1,113,95 sf of Net Leasable Space could be developed on the site at a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.30.
Land Use Development Strategy
Table 9.2 Comparison of Market Demand to Site Carrying Capacity
Phase 1 - 4 TOTAL to 2030
Retail 270,000 sf
Office 72,000 sf
Light Industrial 1,258,500 sf
Hotel 90 rooms
Market Demand to 2030
Retail 253,131 sf
Office 159,013 sf
Light Industrial 617,783 sf
Hotel 115 rooms
Difference of Phases 1 - 4 to Market Demand
Retail 16,869 sf
Office -87,013 sf
Light Industrial 640,717 sf
Hotel -25 rooms
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |77
79
Table 9.3 North Park Land Use Demand Summary
Land Use Development Strategy
Land Use Segment
Retail 63,000 sf 207,000 sf 270,000 sf
Office 27,000 sf 45,000 sf 72,000 sf
Light Industrial 941,000 sf 317,500 sf 1,258,500 sf
Hotel 90 rooms 90 rooms
Land Use Segment
Retail 6.5 acres 19.0 acres 25.5 acres
Office 1.5 acres 2.5 acres 4.0 acres
Light Industrial 44.5 acres 19.5 acres 64.0 acres
Hotel 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
44.5 acres 21.0 acres 11.0 acres 19.0 acres 95.5 acres
Note: Total Gross Parcel Areas as measured/based on CTA LandWorks July 2012 Concept & Phasing Plan
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL Phases 1 - 4
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 Total Phases 1 - 4
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN78
80
Table 9.4 North Park Land Use Allocation By Parcel
Land Use Development Strategy
Land Use Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Gross
Building Area
(GBA)
Avg. # of
Floors
Building
Floorplate
(SF)
Building Area
(Acres)
Building
Efficiency
Net Leasable
Area (NLA)
or Revenue
Space
Parking Ratio
per 1,000 sf
GLA or per
room
Parking
Spaces
Required &
Supplied by
Land Use
Total
Parking
Land Req'd
(Acres)
Net for
Roads &
Landscaping
Net
Developable
Gross
Site Area
PARCEL 1
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.4975,000 1.00 75,000 1.7 100% 75,000 1.0 75 0.81.12.4 3.5
PARCEL 2
Large User Industrial/Manufacturing 0.50240,000 1.00 240,000 5.5 100% 240,000 1.0 240 2.53.57.5 11.0
PARCEL 3
Large User Industrial/Manufacturing 0.50250,000 1.00 250,000 5.7 100% 250,000 1.0 250 2.63.77.8 11.5
PARCEL 4
Large User Industrial/Manufacturing 0.49300,000 1.00 300,000 6.9 100% 300,000 1.0 300 3.14.59.5 14.0
PARCEL 5
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.4180,000 1.00 80,000 1.8 95% 76,000 2.0 152 1.61.43.1 4.5
PARCEL 6
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.3740,000 1.00 40,000 0.9 95% 38,000 2.0 76 0.80.81.7 2.5
PARCEL 7
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.3890,000 1.00 90,000 2.1 95% 85,500 2.0 171 1.81.83.7 5.5
PARCEL 8
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.39120,000 1.00 120,000 2.8 95% 114,000 2.0 228 2.42.24.8 7.0
PARCEL 9
Suburban Office 0.4630,000 2.00 15,000 0.3 90% 27,000 3.0 81 0.70.51.0 1.5
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.4180,000 1.00 80,000 1.8 100% 80,000 2.0 160 1.71.43.1 4.5
PARCEL 10
Suburban Office 0.4650,000 2.00 25,000 0.6 90% 45,000 3.0 135 1.10.81.7 2.5
PARCEL 11
Retail Commercial 0.2570,000 1.00 70,000 1.6 90% 63,000 5.1 319 2.62.14.4 6.5
PARCEL 12
Hotel 0.7767,500 3.00 22,500 0.5 80% 54,000 1.0 54 0.40.61.4 2.0
PARCEL 13
Retail Commercial 0.2680,000 1.00 80,000 1.8 90% 72,000 4.6 333 2.72.24.8 7.0
PARCEL 14
Retail Commercial 0.29150,000 1.00 150,000 3.4 90% 135,000 4.3 586 4.73.88.2 12.0
Land Use Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Gross
Building Area
(GBA)
Avg. # of
Floors
Building
Floorplate
(SF)
Building Area
(Acres)
Building
Efficiency
Net Leasable
Area (NLA)
or Revenue
Space
Parking Ratio
per 1,000 sf
GLA
Parking
Spaces
Required &
Supplied by
Land Use
Total
Parking
Land Req'd
(Acres)
Net for
Roads &
Landscaping
Net
Developable
Gross
Site Area
Suburban Office 0.46 80,000 2.00 40,000 0.9 90% 72,000 3.0 216 1.7 1.3 2.7 4.0
Light Industrial Business Park/Tech 0.40 485,000 1.00 485,000 11.1 97% 468,500 1.8 862 8.9 8.8 18.7 27.5
Large User Industrial/Manufacturing 0.50 790,000 1.00 790,000 18.1 100% 790,000 1.0 790 8.2 11.7 24.8 36.5
Retail Commercial 0.27 300,000 1.00 300,000 6.9 90% 270,000 4.6 1,238 9.9 8.2 17.3 25.5
Hotel 0.77 67,500 3.00 22,500 0.5 80% 54,000 1.0 54 0.4 0.6 1.4 2.0
TOTAL 0.41 1,722,500 1.1 1,637,500 37.6 96% 1,654,500 1.9 3,160 29.2 30.6 64.9 95.5
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |79
9.5 Workshops
CTA along with representatives from the City of Bozeman and
DNRC facilitated two major workshops and public open houses
for the project. The first was an evening meeting on May 23, 2012
that was considered more of a strategic programming workshop.
Major comments taken from the workshop include:
• Feel this is still a good site for future waste transfer facility with
potential tie-in to rail transport.
• Suggest ideal location for industrial park/tech park.
• Supportive of location of indoor/outdoor sports complex within
development
• Concern expressed for location of heavy industry as well as
proliferation of shopping malls
• Include a trail next to Mandeville Creek and create a greenway.
• Need an overpass over I-90 and suggestions seem to be a strong
east-west connection of Griffin Drive to Baxter Drive.
• Bozeman needs a convention center and perhaps the North Park
site is the location.
A second workshop was conducted on June 28th which included
a strategic planning session of invited individuals with an interest
in the project followed by a public open house to discuss and
provide input for the project. The public was able to comment
on three land use options shown within as Option A, B and C
as well as gain insight to the results of the market assessment
process and preliminary findings.
Land Use Development Strategy
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN80
Land Use Development Strategy
Significant comments from the second series of workshops
include:
9.6 Land Use Planning
Based on the market analysis, the CTA Team developed a series of
land use plans that explore a variety of options to build-out the
project site. There are a number of consistent themes derived for
the land use plans from one option to another. The following is a
list of items that are considered necessary for all options:
• An overpass on Interstate 90 providing access into the site
• Expanded access on North 7th Street
• Continued use and improvement of the MRL crossing location on
the northernmost portio of the property
• Creation of rail siding along the existing MRL line with addition of a
second rail spur
• Buffering of the existing Mandeville Creek
• Light Industrial use bordering the railroad.
• Commercial land bordering the interstate.
Five land use planning options have been generated for the
project and noted as options A-E. Each option has various
iterations of landuse distribution and transportation circulation.
Based on ongoing meetings with community leaders, community
workshops and detailed analysis of the market data, Option D
was developed as the preferred alternative and Option C was also
viewed as a viable alternate to Option D. Each of these options
have been developed into a detailed master plan with a full
associated cost estimate broken out into phases.
Only the preferred option has been developed into a full market
feasibility study. What follows is a design analysis for the preferred
alternative master plan.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |81
Land Use Development Strategy
9.7 Master Plan-Preferred Alternative
The 275-acre North Park property is broken roughly into an
80-acre tract owned by the city of Bozeman and the remainder
is held by the DNRC. The preferred alternative master plan utilizes
a main boulevard separated road as a spine linking the rail
crossing location to the north of the site and sweeps through
the site crossing Mandeville creek and terminating to an
improved Mandeville Lane to the far southern boundary
linking with Wheat Drive to the South. The master plan proposes
linking to North 7th Street at Red Wind Drive and Flora Lane.
The Flora Lane extension loops on the West side of the site
forming a greenway drive along Mandeville Creek tying into
the main boulevard drive through the site.
Perhaps the key piece of the transportation component of the
project is the proposed overpass at Mandeville Lane connecting
to East Baxter Lane east of Interstate 90. While an interchange
is not feasible for the project, an overpass will provide indirect
access into the site and provide a community-wide east-west
access road to north 19th avenue and a direct east-west route
for the community across interstate 90.
As indicated earlier, an approximate one-mile rail siding
is proposed adjacent to the existing track and includes a
north-south spur through the middle of the northeastern
half of the property.
From a landuse perspective there are 30.5 acres of light industrial
planned for the northern portion of the site with a large 14 acre
tract of land designated as manufacturing. The northeast corner
of the North Park tract is the most ideal for heavier manufacturing.
It is most remote and is relatively hidden from within the property
and from adjacent lands.
The center portion of the site is slated for 15 acres of Tech and 6
acres of office space. At the northeast corner of the Mandeville
Lane and Wheat Drive intersection 2.5 acres are planned for Office
Space. The Northwest side of the intersection is slated for 6.5
acres of retail commercial with an adjacent 2 acres of hotel space.
Nineteen (19) acres adjacent to Interstate 90 are planned as retail
commercial.
Finally, splitting the City owned property and DNRC land along
Interstate 90 is recreation land that could be developed as an
indoor sports complex with associated outdoor sports fields.
This landuse can be viewed as temporary should development
pressure make the land more valued as commercial in the future.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN82
Land Use Development Strategy
The proposed development infrastructure costs are
approximately $17.7 Million in 2012 dollars. Design assumptions
utilize Bozeman’s Uniform Development Code as guidelines for
construction and cost projections. The following are general
design assumptions for the preferred option:
• Roadways to include concrete curb and gutter with
asphalt road profile.
• Boulevard Road is separated by a ten foot landscape
planting median
• Ductile Iron Water Lines
• Two major detention basins planned for the development
• Street lighting throughout the boulevard roadway and at
intersections throughout the remainder of the development.
• All utilities including electric underground.
• Entry signage at four locations within the development.
• Street trees on 50’ centers throughout all roads.
• An asphalt bike trail following the greenway corridor of
Mandeville Creek.
• A 400’ bridge deck over Interstate 90 with four 12’ lanes and
two-two foot striping lanes on the outside for comfort
for bicyclists.
9.8 Scheduling
This section will explore timing of future tasks and conditions
required to develop the North Park Tract.
a. Environmental Assessments
Currently a required Environmental assessment is underway
for the project and will be completed prior to any actual
construction taking place.
b. Montana Rail Link
During the course of the planning process CTA has met with
representatives of Montana Rail Link and discussed the project
several times. It is a fair statement that Montana Rail Link (MRL)
has a significant interest in providing better rail service in
Bozeman. The North Park property offers an ideal access point
for a rail siding and spur line to provide rail service to the light
industrial and manufacturing proposed on the northern portion
of the site.
There is approximately one mile of spur and rail siding
proposed in the preferred alternative or roughly $1 M worth
of improvements. Currently, MRL has indicated that they will
not participate in building rail access lines but obviously that
is negotiable depending on the type of industry and
eventual tenants.
Recommendations include continual dialog with MRL throughout
the final engineering and development process in order to
make sure rail configuration planning is feasible. Ultimately the
rail siding, spur design and rail crossing signalization will be
coordinated and or designed by MRL.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |83
Land Use Development Strategy
Further coordination with MRL subsequent to this planning effort
should be encouraged specifically for marketing purposes of the
light industrial properties. The city and DNRC should coordinate
with MRL in order to utilize MRL’s network of marketing for
mutually beneficial businesses who may be interested in locating
in the North Park property.
c. Zoning
Currently the entire site is zoned either M1 or M2 or
manufacturing. While not necessarily required, rezoning of
the properties systematically may be desirable. Since this is
in essence a step down zoning it is easier than rezoning the
properties in the opposite direction. It is not recommended to
rezone all the properties immediately rather it is more likely and
desirable to rezone to an appropriate level of zoning at which
time the property is either platted or even sold or planned for
a tenant.
There are obviously potential pitfalls with this process as rezoning
numerous parcels over the years is cumbersome and from a
planning perspective is not ideal but given the length of time
necessary for full build-out much can change.
d. Preliminary Platting
The project envisions four (4) phases of construction of
infrastructure that coincides with a similar level of platting. It may
be in the City’s best interest to develop the project as a PUD with
multiple phases of construction. This will provide consistency for
tenants and landowners but yet give a level of flexibility for the
City of Bozeman and DNRC. At this point, the project would be
platted in four phases according to the phasing plan provided.
e. Infrastructure Development/Extension
Currently water and sewer exist through the site but work
was done prior to planning for the site and it is anticipated
that utilities will have to be replaced during construction.
Cost estimates for each preferred option define construction
of utilities within each development phase.
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN84
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
A
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |85NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
B
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN86
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
C
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |87
Ma
n
d
e
v
i
l
l
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
C
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
Ph
a
s
e
1
Ph
a
s
e
2
Ph
a
s
e
3
P
h
a
s
e
4
Re
m
o
v
e
S
t
u
b
b
l
e
/
s
t
o
c
k
p
i
l
e
t
o
p
s
o
i
l
18
,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
3
.
6
6
=
6
6
,
6
1
2
$
$2
6
,
6
4
5
$1
8
,
6
5
1
$
6
,
6
6
1
$
1
4
,
6
5
5
Su
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
/
S
t
a
k
i
n
g
71
0
h
r
s
@
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
=
7
1
,
0
0
0
$
$2
8
,
4
0
0
$1
9
,
8
8
0
$
7
,
1
0
0
$
1
5
,
6
2
0
Ea
r
t
h
w
o
r
k
75
,
0
0
0
C
Y
@
$
5
.
0
0
=
3
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
7
,
5
0
0
$
8
2
,
5
0
0
Fi
n
a
l
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
15
AC
@
$
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
=
5
0
,
7
5
0
$
$2
0
,
3
0
0
$1
4
,
2
1
0
$
5
,
0
7
5
$
1
1
,
1
6
5
Du
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
/
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
34
2
h
r
s
@
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
=
5
1
,
3
0
0
$
$2
0
,
5
2
0
$1
4
,
3
6
4
$
5
,
1
3
0
$
1
1
,
2
8
6
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
6
1
4
,
6
6
2
$
$2
4
5
,
8
6
5
$1
7
2
,
1
0
5
$
6
1
,
4
6
6
$
1
3
5
,
2
2
6
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Su
r
v
e
y
/
S
t
a
k
i
n
g
66
0
H
R
S
@
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
=
6
6
,
0
0
0
$
$2
6
,
4
0
0
$1
8
,
4
8
0
$
6
,
6
0
0
$
1
4
,
5
2
0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
*
1
E
A
@
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
a
c
k
u
p
P
o
w
e
r
0E
A
@
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Fo
r
c
e
M
a
i
n
-
4
"
0
L
F
@
$
7
5
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
H
o
u
s
e
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
0
E
A
@
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
L
i
n
e
-
1
2
"
6,
0
0
0
L
F
@
$
4
0
.
0
0
=
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$1
8
9
,
6
0
0
$5
0
,
4
0
0
$0
$0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
n
e
8
"
12
,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
3
0
.
0
0
=
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
$
$4
3
,
9
2
0
$1
1
7
,
1
2
0
$
5
4
,
9
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
6
0
Se
w
e
r
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
61
E
A
@
$
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
=
2
1
3
,
5
0
0
$
$8
5
,
4
0
0
$5
9
,
7
8
0
$
2
1
,
3
5
0
$
4
6
,
9
7
0
Se
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
C
-
L
o
t
s
(
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
25
E
A
@
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$6
,
2
5
0
$6
,
2
5
0
$
6
,
2
5
0
$
6
,
2
5
0
We
l
l
s
-
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
0
E
A
@
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Wa
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
-
8
"
D
u
c
t
i
l
e
I
r
o
n
12
,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
8
5
.
0
0
=
1
,
0
3
7
,
0
0
0
$
$1
2
4
,
4
4
0
$3
3
1
,
8
4
0
$
1
5
5
,
5
5
0
$
4
2
5
,
1
7
0
Wa
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
-
1
4
"
D
u
c
t
i
l
e
I
r
o
n
6,
0
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
2
0
.
0
0
=
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
$5
6
8
,
8
0
0
$1
5
1
,
2
0
0
$0
$0
Wa
t
e
r
V
a
u
l
t
s
25
E
A
@
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
3,
1
2
5
$
$7
8
1
$7
8
1
$7
8
1
$7
8
1
Wa
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
25
E
A
@
$
1
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
=
3
3
,
0
0
0
$
$8
,
2
5
0
$8
,
2
5
0
$
8
,
2
5
0
$
8
,
2
5
0
Fi
r
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t
s
32
E
A
@
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
$6
4
,
0
0
0
$4
4
,
8
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
2
0
0
Re
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
s
2
E
A
@
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Sto
r
m
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
61
E
A
@
$
2
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
7
0
,
8
0
0
$
$6
8
,
3
2
0
$4
7
,
8
2
4
$
1
7
,
0
8
0
$
3
7
,
5
7
6
Up
p
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
18
,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
2
0
.
0
0
=
3
6
4
,
0
0
0
$
$1
4
5
,
6
0
0
$1
0
1
,
9
2
0
$
3
6
,
4
0
0
$
8
0
,
0
8
0
24
"
S
t
o
r
m
L
i
n
e
6,
0
0
0
L
F
@
$
7
5
.
0
0
=
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
$3
5
5
,
5
0
0
$9
4
,
5
0
0
$0
$0
18
"
S
t
o
r
m
L
i
n
e
12
,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
5
0
.
0
0
=
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
$7
3
,
2
0
0
$1
9
5
,
2
0
0
$
9
1
,
5
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
1
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
V
a
u
l
t
s
25
E
A
@
$
7
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
7
,
5
0
0
$
$4
,
3
7
5
$4
,
3
7
5
$
4
,
3
7
5
$
4
,
3
7
5
Bo
r
i
n
g
-
P
o
w
e
r
1E
A
@
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
5
,
0
0
0
$
$5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Str
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
63
E
A
@
$
4
,
9
4
2
.
0
0
=
3
1
1
,
3
4
6
$
$1
8
6
,
8
0
8
$6
2
,
2
6
9
$
3
1
,
1
3
5
$
3
1
,
1
3
5
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
/
P
a
r
k
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
*
5
E
A
@
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Tr
a
i
l
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
10
E
A
@
$
2
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
=
2
1
,
2
0
0
$
$0
$0
$0
$
2
1
,
2
0
0
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
18
,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
0
.
0
0
=
1
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
$7
2
,
8
0
0
$5
0
,
9
6
0
$
1
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
4
0
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
-
M
a
i
n
L
i
n
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
L
F
@
$
1
8
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
5
,
2
3
5
,
4
7
1
$
$2
,
0
4
9
,
4
4
4
$
1
,
5
4
5
,
9
4
9
$
4
8
8
,
3
7
1
$
1
,
1
5
1
,
7
0
7
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
Su
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
/
S
t
a
k
i
n
g
94
0
H
R
S
@
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
=
9
4
,
0
0
0
$
$3
7
,
6
0
0
$2
6
,
3
2
0
$
9
,
4
0
0
$
2
0
,
6
8
0
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
/
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
4
E
A
@
$
2
0
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
=
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
$4
1
,
0
0
0
$4
1
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Ma
i
n
t
h
r
u
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
(
C
&
G
,
b
l
v
d
,
w
a
l
k
)
6,
1
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
8
0
.
0
0
=
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
0
0
$
$8
6
7
,
4
2
0
$2
3
0
,
5
8
0
$0
$0
Sta
n
d
a
r
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
(
C
&
G
,
w
a
l
k
)
9,
7
0
0
L
F
@
$
9
5
.
0
0
=
9
2
1
,
5
0
0
$
$1
1
0
,
5
8
0
$2
9
4
,
8
8
0
$
1
3
8
,
2
2
5
$
3
7
7
,
8
1
5
Bo
x
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
3
E
A
@
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
9
,
7
0
0
$0
$0
$
6
0
,
3
0
0
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
i
d
i
n
g
/
s
p
u
r
5,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
9
2
.
0
0
=
9
9
8
,
4
0
0
$
$0
$9
9
8
,
4
0
0
$0
$0
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
a
l
1
L
S
@
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
,
2
8
3
,
9
0
0
$
$1
,
1
8
6
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
5
9
1
,
1
8
0
$
1
4
7
,
6
2
5
$
4
5
8
,
7
9
5
Sig
n
a
g
e
En
t
r
y
S
i
g
n
s
*
4
E
A
@
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
En
t
r
y
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
4
E
A
@
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
1
E
A
@
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
$3
,
7
5
0
$3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
9
5
,
0
0
0
$
$4
3
,
7
5
0
$4
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Str
e
e
t
T
r
e
e
s
72
8
E
A
@
$
2
5
0
.
0
0
=
1
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
$7
2
,
8
0
0
$5
0
,
9
6
0
$
1
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
4
0
Na
t
u
r
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
0
L
S
@
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
F
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
R
a
i
l
R
o
a
d
5,
0
0
0
L
F
@
$
2
5
.
0
0
=
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6,
0
0
0
L
F
@
$
6
0
.
0
0
=
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
8
4
,
4
0
0
$7
5
,
6
0
0
$0
$0
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6,
0
0
0
L
S
@
$
3
0
.
0
0
=
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
$1
4
2
,
2
0
0
$3
7
,
8
0
0
$0
$0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
8
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
$4
9
9
,
4
0
0
$2
8
9
,
3
6
0
$
1
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
4
0
Am
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Bik
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
*
2,
5
0
0
L
F
@
$
2
0
.
0
0
=
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$0
$0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Pa
r
k
1
E
A
@
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
0
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
2
L
S
@
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
0
Ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
/
4
0
0
'
S
p
a
n
20
,
8
0
0
S
F
@
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
=
3
,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$0
$
3
,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
,
3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
13
,
3
8
6
,
0
3
3
$
$4
,
0
2
4
,
7
5
9
$
3
,
7
8
2
,
3
4
5
$
3
,
8
3
9
,
4
1
2
$
1
,
8
3
9
,
5
1
7
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
@
10
%
1
,
3
3
8
,
6
0
3
$
$4
0
2
,
4
7
6
$3
7
8
,
2
3
4
$
3
8
3
,
9
4
1
$
1
8
3
,
9
5
2
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
14
,
7
2
4
,
6
3
6
$
$4
,
4
2
7
,
2
3
5
$
4
,
1
6
0
,
5
7
9
$
4
,
2
2
3
,
3
5
3
$
2
,
0
2
3
,
4
6
9
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
@
5%
7
3
6
,
2
3
2
$
$2
2
1
,
3
6
2
$2
0
8
,
0
2
9
$
2
1
1
,
1
6
8
$
1
0
1
,
1
7
3
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
15
,
4
6
0
,
8
6
8
$
$4
,
6
4
8
,
5
9
6
$
4
,
3
6
8
,
6
0
8
$
4
,
4
3
4
,
5
2
1
$
2
,
1
2
4
,
6
4
3
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
O
H
&
P
r
o
f
i
t
@
5%
7
7
3
,
0
4
3
$
$2
3
2
,
4
3
0
$2
1
8
,
4
3
0
$
2
2
1
,
7
2
6
$
1
0
6
,
2
3
2
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
16
,
2
3
3
,
9
1
2
$
$4
,
8
8
1
,
0
2
6
$
4
,
5
8
7
,
0
3
9
$
4
,
6
5
6
,
2
4
7
$
2
,
2
3
0
,
8
7
5
Fe
e
s
,
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
&
S
o
f
t
C
o
s
t
s
A/E
/
C
A
/
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
1
L
S
@
1
4
.
0
0
%
=
0
$
2
,
2
7
2
,
7
4
8
$
$6
8
3
,
3
4
4
$6
4
2
,
1
8
5
$
6
5
1
,
8
7
5
$
3
1
2
,
3
2
2
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
1
L
S
@
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Le
g
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
1
L
S
@
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
2
,
3
7
2
,
7
4
8
$
$7
5
3
,
3
4
4
$6
4
9
,
6
8
5
$
6
5
9
,
3
7
5
$
3
1
9
,
8
2
2
To
t
a
l
L
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
s
=
18
,
6
0
6
,
6
5
9
$
$5
,
6
3
4
,
3
7
0
$
5
,
2
3
6
,
7
2
4
$
5
,
3
1
5
,
6
2
2
$
2
,
5
5
0
,
6
9
7
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
O
p
t
i
o
n
C
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN88
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
D
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |89
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
D
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN90
Ma
n
d
e
v
i
l
l
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
D
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
Ph
a
s
e
1
Ph
a
s
e
2
Ph
a
s
e
3
P
h
a
s
e
4
Re
m
o
v
e
S
t
u
b
b
l
e
/
s
t
o
c
k
p
i
l
e
t
o
p
s
o
i
l
15
,
8
0
0
L
F
@
$
3
.
6
6
=
5
7
,
8
2
8
$
$2
3
,
1
3
1
$1
6
,
1
9
2
$
5
,
7
8
3
$
1
2
,
7
2
2
Su
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
/
S
t
a
k
i
n
g
63
2
h
r
s
@
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
=
6
3
,
2
0
0
$
$2
5
,
2
8
0
$1
7
,
6
9
6
$
6
,
3
2
0
$
1
3
,
9
0
4
Ea
r
t
h
w
o
r
k
70
,
0
0
0
C
Y
@
$
5
.
0
0
=
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$9
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
7
,
0
0
0
Fi
n
a
l
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
15
AC
@
$
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
=
5
0
,
7
5
0
$
$2
0
,
3
0
0
$1
4
,
2
1
0
$
5
,
0
7
5
$
1
1
,
1
6
5
Du
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
/
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
31
6
h
r
s
@
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
=
4
7
,
4
0
0
$
$1
8
,
9
6
0
$1
3
,
2
7
2
$
4
,
7
4
0
$
1
0
,
4
2
8
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
5
6
9
,
1
7
8
$
$2
2
7
,
6
7
1
$1
5
9
,
3
7
0
$
5
6
,
9
1
8
$
1
2
5
,
2
1
9
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Su
r
v
e
y
/
S
t
a
k
i
n
g
60
0
H
R
S
@
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
=
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$1
6
,
8
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
2
0
0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
*
1
E
A
@
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
a
c
k
u
p
P
o
w
e
r
0E
A
@
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Fo
r
c
e
M
a
i
n
-
4
"
0
L
F
@
$
7
5
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
H
o
u
s
e
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
0
E
A
@
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
L
i
n
e
-
1
2
"
6,
1
0
0
L
F
@
$
4
0
.
0
0
=
2
4
4
,
0
0
0
$
$1
9
2
,
7
6
0
$5
1
,
2
4
0
$0
$0
Se
w
e
r
L
i
n
e
8
"
9,
7
0
0
L
F
@
$
3
0
.
0
0
=
2
9
1
,
0
0
0
$
$3
4
,
9
2
0
$9
3
,
1
2
0
$
4
3
,
6
5
0
$
1
1
9
,
3
1
0
Se
w
e
r
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
53
E
A
@
$
3
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
8
5
,
5
0
0
$
$7
4
,
2
0
0
$5
1
,
9
4
0
$
1
8
,
5
5
0
$
4
0
,
8
1
0
Se
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
C
-
L
o
t
s
(
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
25
E
A
@
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$6
,
2
5
0
$6
,
2
5
0
$
6
,
2
5
0
$
6
,
2
5
0
We
l
l
s
-
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
0
E
A
@
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Wa
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
-
8
"
D
u
c
t
i
l
e
I
r
o
n
9,
7
0
0
L
F
@
$
8
5
.
0
0
=
8
2
4
,
5
0
0
$
$9
8
,
9
4
0
$2
6
3
,
8
4
0
$
1
2
3
,
6
7
5
$
3
3
8
,
0
4
5
Wa
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
-
1
4
"
D
u
c
t
i
l
e
I
r
o
n
6,
1
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
2
0
.
0
0
=
7
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
$5
7
8
,
2
8
0
$1
5
3
,
7
2
0
$0
$0
Wa
t
e
r
V
a
u
l
t
s
25
E
A
@
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
3,
1
2
5
$
$7
8
1
$7
8
1
$7
8
1
$7
8
1
Wa
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
25
E
A
@
$
1
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
=
3
3
,
0
0
0
$
$8
,
2
5
0
$8
,
2
5
0
$
8
,
2
5
0
$
8
,
2
5
0
Fi
r
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t
s
32
E
A
@
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
$6
4
,
0
0
0
$4
4
,
8
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
2
0
0
Re
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
s
2
E
A
@
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Sto
r
m
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
53
E
A
@
$
2
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
$5
9
,
3
6
0
$4
1
,
5
5
2
$
1
4
,
8
4
0
$
3
2
,
6
4
8
Up
p
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
15
,
8
0
0
L
F
@
$
2
0
.
0
0
=
3
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
$1
2
6
,
4
0
0
$8
8
,
4
8
0
$
3
1
,
6
0
0
$
6
9
,
5
2
0
24
"
S
t
o
r
m
L
i
n
e
6,
1
0
0
L
F
@
$
7
5
.
0
0
=
4
5
7
,
5
0
0
$
$3
6
1
,
4
2
5
$9
6
,
0
7
5
$0
$0
18
"
S
t
o
r
m
L
i
n
e
9,
7
0
0
L
F
@
$
5
0
.
0
0
=
4
8
5
,
0
0
0
$
$5
8
,
2
0
0
$1
5
5
,
2
0
0
$
7
2
,
7
5
0
$
1
9
8
,
8
5
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
r
V
a
u
l
t
s
25
E
A
@
$
7
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
7
,
5
0
0
$
$4
,
3
7
5
$4
,
3
7
5
$
4
,
3
7
5
$
4
,
3
7
5
Bo
r
i
n
g
-
P
o
w
e
r
1E
A
@
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
5
,
0
0
0
$
$5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Str
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
61
E
A
@
$
4
,
9
4
2
.
0
0
=
3
0
1
,
4
6
2
$
$1
8
0
,
8
7
7
$6
0
,
2
9
2
$
3
0
,
1
4
6
$
3
0
,
1
4
6
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
/
P
a
r
k
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
*
5
E
A
@
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Tr
a
i
l
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
10
E
A
@
$
2
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
=
2
1
,
2
0
0
$
$0
$0
$0
$
2
1
,
2
0
0
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
15
,
8
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
0
.
0
0
=
1
5
8
,
0
0
0
$
$6
3
,
2
0
0
$4
4
,
2
4
0
$
1
5
,
8
0
0
$
3
4
,
7
6
0
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
-
M
a
i
n
L
i
n
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
L
F
@
$
1
8
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
4
,
7
0
8
,
1
8
7
$
$1
,
9
6
1
,
2
1
8
$
1
,
3
8
0
,
9
5
6
$
4
1
2
,
6
6
7
$
9
5
3
,
3
4
5
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
Su
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
/
S
t
a
k
i
n
g
90
0
H
R
S
@
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
=
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
$3
6
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
2
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
,
8
0
0
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
/
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
4
E
A
@
$
2
0
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
=
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
$4
1
,
0
0
0
$4
1
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Ma
i
n
t
h
r
u
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
(
C
&
G
,
b
l
v
d
,
w
a
l
k
)
6,
1
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
8
0
.
0
0
=
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
0
0
$
$8
6
7
,
4
2
0
$2
3
0
,
5
8
0
$0
$0
Sta
n
d
a
r
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
(
C
&
G
,
w
a
l
k
)
9,
7
0
0
L
F
@
$
9
5
.
0
0
=
9
2
1
,
5
0
0
$
$1
1
0
,
5
8
0
$2
9
4
,
8
8
0
$
1
3
8
,
2
2
5
$
3
7
7
,
8
1
5
Bo
x
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
3
E
A
@
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
9
,
7
0
0
$0
$0
$
6
0
,
3
0
0
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
i
d
i
n
g
/
s
p
u
r
5,
2
0
0
L
F
@
$
1
9
2
.
0
0
=
9
9
8
,
4
0
0
$
$0
$9
9
8
,
4
0
0
$0
$0
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
a
l
1
L
S
@
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
,
2
7
9
,
9
0
0
$
$1
,
1
8
4
,
7
0
0
$
1
,
5
9
0
,
0
6
0
$
1
4
7
,
2
2
5
$
4
5
7
,
9
1
5
Sig
n
a
g
e
En
t
r
y
S
i
g
n
s
*
4
E
A
@
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
En
t
r
y
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
4
E
A
@
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
1
E
A
@
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
$3
,
7
5
0
$3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
9
5
,
0
0
0
$
$4
3
,
7
5
0
$4
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
7
5
0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Str
e
e
t
T
r
e
e
s
63
0
E
A
@
$
2
5
0
.
0
0
=
1
5
7
,
5
0
0
$
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$4
4
,
1
0
0
$
1
5
,
7
5
0
$
3
4
,
6
5
0
Na
t
u
r
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
0
L
S
@
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
-
$
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
F
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
R
a
i
l
R
o
a
d
5,
0
0
0
L
F
@
$
2
5
.
0
0
=
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6,
1
0
0
L
F
@
$
6
0
.
0
0
=
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
$
$2
8
9
,
1
4
0
$7
6
,
8
6
0
$0
$0
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6,
1
0
0
L
S
@
$
3
0
.
0
0
=
1
8
3
,
0
0
0
$
$1
4
4
,
5
7
0
$3
8
,
4
3
0
$0
$0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
8
3
1
,
5
0
0
$
$4
9
6
,
7
1
0
$2
8
4
,
3
9
0
$
1
5
,
7
5
0
$
3
4
,
6
5
0
Am
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Bik
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
*
2,
5
0
0
L
F
@
$
2
0
.
0
0
=
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$0
$0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Pa
r
k
1
E
A
@
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
0
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
2
L
S
@
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
0
Ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
/
4
0
0
'
S
p
a
n
20
,
8
0
0
S
F
@
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
=
3
,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$0
$
3
,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
,
3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
$0
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
12
,
7
9
3
,
7
6
5
$
$3
,
9
1
4
,
0
5
0
$
3
,
5
9
8
,
5
2
5
$
3
,
7
5
6
,
3
1
0
$
1
,
6
2
4
,
8
8
0
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
@
10
%
1
,
2
7
9
,
3
7
7
$
$3
9
1
,
4
0
5
$3
5
9
,
8
5
3
$
3
7
5
,
6
3
1
$
1
6
2
,
4
8
8
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
14
,
0
7
3
,
1
4
2
$
$4
,
3
0
5
,
4
5
5
$
3
,
9
5
8
,
3
7
8
$
4
,
1
3
1
,
9
4
1
$
1
,
7
8
7
,
3
6
8
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
@
5%
7
0
3
,
6
5
7
$
$2
1
5
,
2
7
3
$1
9
7
,
9
1
9
$
2
0
6
,
5
9
7
$
8
9
,
3
6
8
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
14
,
7
7
6
,
7
9
9
$
$4
,
5
2
0
,
7
2
7
$
4
,
1
5
6
,
2
9
7
$
4
,
3
3
8
,
5
3
8
$
1
,
8
7
6
,
7
3
6
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
O
H
&
P
r
o
f
i
t
@
5%
7
3
8
,
8
4
0
$
$2
2
6
,
0
3
6
$2
0
7
,
8
1
5
$
2
1
6
,
9
2
7
$
9
3
,
8
3
7
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
=
15
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
$
$4
,
7
4
6
,
7
6
4
$
4
,
3
6
4
,
1
1
2
$
4
,
5
5
5
,
4
6
5
$
1
,
9
7
0
,
5
7
3
Fe
e
s
,
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
&
S
o
f
t
C
o
s
t
s
A/E
/
C
A
/
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
1
L
S
@
1
4
.
0
0
%
=
0
$
2
,
1
7
2
,
1
8
9
$
$6
6
4
,
5
4
7
$6
1
0
,
9
7
6
$
6
3
7
,
7
6
5
$
2
7
5
,
8
8
0
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
1
L
S
@
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Le
g
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
1
L
S
@
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
=
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
2
,
2
7
2
,
1
8
9
$
$7
3
4
,
5
4
7
$6
1
8
,
4
7
6
$
6
4
5
,
2
6
5
$
2
8
3
,
3
8
0
To
t
a
l
L
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
s
=
17
,
7
8
7
,
8
2
8
$
$5
,
4
8
1
,
3
1
1
$
4
,
9
8
2
,
5
8
7
$
5
,
2
0
0
,
7
3
0
$
2
,
2
5
3
,
9
5
3
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
O
p
t
i
o
n
D
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN |91
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
E
NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN || NORTH PARK CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN92
Produced for North Park Properties by
CTA ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
411 East Main Street | Suite 101 | Bozeman, MT 59715406.556.7100 ph | www.ctagroup.com
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
AND RELATED APPENDICES
1
UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
As the engineer that prepared the preliminary engineering report, I __________________________________, (print name of engineer) have reviewed the information presented in this checklist and believe that it accurately identifies the environmental resources in the area and the potential impacts that the project could have on those
resources. In addition, the required state and federal agencies were provided with the required information about the project and requested to provide comments on the proposed public facility project. Their comments have been
incorporated into and attached to the Preliminary Engineering Report.
Engineer’s Signature:___________________________________________________ Date:_________________
Key Letter: N – No Impact/Not Applicable B – Potentially Beneficial A – Potentially Adverse P – Approval/Permits Required M – Mitigation Required PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Key 1. Soil Suitability, Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints (e.g., soil slump, steep
slopes, subsidence, seismic activity) N
Comments and Source of Information: No serious constraints: see Attachment A pages A1-
A14. Minor slopes (4 to 8% slopes in soil unit on 15.2% of the site) and area of flooding/shallow saturation (12.5% of the site). (USDA, 2013) The areas of steepest slopes are shown on the topographic maps on pages A3-A6.
Key 2. Hazardous Facilities (e.g., power lines, EPA hazardous waste sites, acceptable
distance from explosive and flammable hazards including chemical/petrochemical storage tanks, underground fuel storage tanks, and related facilities such as natural gas storage facilities & propane storage tanks)
A,P
Comments and Source of Information: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was
performed for the North Park Properties (Hyalite Environmental, LLP, 2012). The Executive
Summary states:
Hyalite Environmental, LLP, has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on State of Montana (State) and City of Bozeman (City) owned properties in Bozeman, MT. The
properties of interest include approximately 250-acres located north of I-90 between the 7th Street and 19th Street interchanges, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Section 36, Montana Prime Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana (Figure 1 and 2).
This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property except for the following:
• The Bozeman Solvent Site Controlled Ground Water Area, which extends under the properties of interest. As described in Sections 4.1.1 and 7.0, restrictions are in place within the boundary of the Controlled Ground Water Area and any drilling or well installation would
require appropriate approval and permitting. Standard concerns that were identified, but do not present a recognized environmental condition,
include solid waste dump sites and the large quantity of scattered debris. Removal of this solid waste will require appropriate handling and disposal. Many materials, particularly metals, may be recycled rather than landfilled.
The figure in Attachment A, page A15 shows the location of existing utilities on site. A
utilities locator should be contacted before any construction or excavation.
2
Key 3. Effects of Project on Surrounding Air Quality or Any Kind of Effects of Existing Air
Quality on Project (e.g., dust, odors, emissions) A,M,P
Comments and Source of Information: Construction Best Management Practices will be
employed to minimize fugitive dust during construction. Constructed buildings and businesses will be required to comply with emissions standards (HVAC, etc) and regulations
(ARM Title 17 Chapter 8 Subchapter 3), permitting, and inspections as enforced by the MT Department of Environmental Quality. Specific industries and equipment may be subject to
additional OSHA standards.
Key 4. Groundwater Resources & Aquifers (e.g., quantity, quality, distribution, depth to groundwater, sole source aquifers) A,M,P
Comments and Source of Information: Ground water on the North Park Properties ranges
from a depth of 36 feet below ground surface (Attachment A page A16)(MBMG, 2013) to within 1 foot of the ground surface (USDA, 2013) adjacent to Mandeville Creek.
Groundwater recharge will be facilitated through stormwater runoff infiltration at detention ponds. The buildings and businesses will use water provided by the City of Bozeman.
Because the site is within the Controlled Groundwater Area (CGWA) of the Bozeman Solvent Site, . Activity and Use Limitations within the boundary of the CGWA require
permitting from DNRC.
Key 5. Surface Water/Water Quality, Quantity & Distribution (e.g., streams, lakes, storm runoff, irrigation systems, canals) B,A,M,
P Comments and Source of Information: Impacts to Mandeville Creek’s stream and
streambanks will be limited through setbacks required in the City of Bozeman Unified
Development Order (City of Bozeman, 2013a) and State of MT stream permitting (DNRC, 2013). Design will protect the stream and enhance/restore the stream as much as possible.
Road, trail, and utility crossings and any bank grading / restoration will require permitting and possible mitigation.
Although there could be impacts to surface water quality due to surface stormwater runoff,
permitting will require that a designed stormwater system mitigate those potential impacts. There will be less sediment carried to the stream and offsite by surface water runoff after
the designed stormwater system is constructed than there currently is under agricultural use of the land.
Key 6. Floodplains & Floodplain Management (Identify any floodplains within one mile of the
boundary of the project.) N
Comments and Source of Information: Attachment A page A17 shows the available FEMA FIRM maps from the City of Bozeman GIS website (2013b). Engineering design will need
to consider high flows of Mandeville Creek.
Key 7. Wetlands Protection (Identify any wetlands within one mile of the boundary of the project.) B,A,M,
P Comments and Source of Information: Of the four publicly available sources that identify potential wetland areas (City of Bozeman, 2013b; MNHP, 2013; USFWS, 2013), shown in
Attachment A pages A18-A21, three of the sources identify potential wetland areas within the North Park properties. It is likely that there are fringe wetlands associated with
Mandeville Creek, although the extent of these wetlands has not yet been determined. The design for use of the parcel will include a buffer zone and protection of the stream and
potential wetland corridor. Areas of wetlands will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If roads, trails, or utilities must cross wetlands, a wetland delineation will be
required to determine the potential area of impacts for permitting and possible mitigation.
3
Key 8. Agricultural Lands, Production, & Farmland Protection (e.g., grazing, forestry,
cropland, prime or unique agricultural lands) (Identify any prime or important farm ground or forest lands within one mile of the boundary of the project.)
A
Comments and Source of Information: USDA Web Soil Survey shows the farmland
classification of areas of specific soil units (USDA, 2013). Within the North Park properties 55.9% of the area is Prime Farmland, 28.9% is Prime Farmland If Irrigated, and 15.2% of
the area is Farmland Of Statewide Importance (Attachment A pages A22-A25). This statistic is pertinent because the land is currently in agricultural use. The requested statistic
(within one mile) is shown in Attachment A pages A26-A30: 54.0% Prime Farmland, 15.3% Prime Farmland If Irrigated, 5.2% Farmland of Statewide Importance, 10.8% Farmland of
Local Importance. The requested statistic is somewhat moot, because it has not been updated for urban and suburban development of much of the area. Because these
properties are located within the Bozeman city limits, they are designated for development (City of Bozeman, 2009; Craig Campbell, DNRC, personal communication 9/3/2013) and
mitigation will not be required for loss of agricultural lands.
Key 9. Vegetation & Wildlife Species & Habitats, Including Fish (e.g., terrestrial, avian and aquatic life and habitats) B,A
Comments and Source of Information: Current agricultural use of the land provides seasonal habitat for fauna such as insects, small animals (which are prey for raptors, fox,
coyote), deer, and field birds. Working the fields (land application of sludge, tilling, seeding, herbicide application, harvesting) provides extreme intermittent disruption. The stream
corridor contains minor streamside and aquatic habitat (primarily for macroinvertebrates), which is also disrupted by the agricultural activity in the adjacent fields and stormwater
runoff from the fields. Design goals and mitigation/permitting requirements for surface water runoff will likely improve the aquatic habitat provided by Mandeville Creek. Development of
the site will shift habitat from ag/field to green space corridors and urban/suburban landscaping.
Key 10. Unique, Endangered, Fragile, or Limited Environmental Resources, Including Endangered Species (e.g., plants, fish or wildlife) B
Comments and Source of Information: Consultation with the Montana Natural Resource Heritage Program is included in Attachment A, pages A31-A37. The USFWS Threatened
and Endangered Species list for Gallatin County is included in Attachment A, page A38. Because of agricultural use of the land, the specific habitat available on the properties and
its location in the Bozeman urban area, it is unlikely that the North Park properties serve as any significant habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered Species or
Montana Species of Concern (SOC). Stream protection and buffer zone will be protective and conducive to potential occurrence of the Sate SOC hooked snowfly (Isocapinia crinita)
and federally listed Ute ladies tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis).
Key 11. Unique Natural Features (e.g., geologic features) N
Comments and Source of Information: Geologic map of Bozeman area (Vuke and others,
2002)
4
Key 12. Access to, and Quality of, Recreational & Wilderness Activities, Public Lands and
Waterways (including Federally Designated Wild & Scenic Rivers), and Public Open Space
B,A
Comments and Source of Information: The North Park properties are currently publicly
owned (City of Bozeman, MT DNRC) open space that are leased for private agricultural use. The development of the parcels will decrease open space, but increase public access
to the green space, trails, and recreation complex that are planned (CTA and MXD, 2012).
Key Letter: N – No Impact/Not Applicable B – Potentially Beneficial A – Potentially Adverse P – Approval/Permits Required M – Mitigation Required
HUMAN POPULATION Key 1. Visual Quality – Coherence, Diversity, Compatibility of Use and Scale, Aesthetics B, A, M
Comments and Source of Information: The proposed North Park project will comply with
the Bozeman Community Plan (City of Bozeman, 2009), City of Bozeman regulations (City of Bozeman, 2013), and review of the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and
Community Development and Planning Board. Public input was solicited through several public meetings (CTA and MXD, 2012). The design standards proposed for the project
reflect an emphasis on 360-degree architecture so that building siting and design is unique and compatible with the surrounding community (CTA and MXD, 2012).
Key 2. Nuisances (e.g., glare, fumes)
A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Emissions will comply with standards (HVAC, etc) and air quality requirements of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (industrial
emissions). Lighting will be in compliance with the Bozeman Community Plan (City of Bozeman, 2009), City of Bozeman regulations (City of Bozeman, 2013), and review of the
City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development and Planning Board.
Key 3. Noise -- suitable separation between noise sensitive activities (such as residential
areas) and major noise sources (aircraft, highways & railroads) A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Noise and noise mitigation will be in compliance with the Bozeman Community Plan (City of Bozeman, 2009), ), City of Bozeman regulations
(City of Bozeman, 2013), and review of the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development and Planning Board. Each component of the development will
have noise mitigation (from highway traffic, rail traffic, industry) as is appropriate for the specific use (hotel, office space, etc.). The proposed development is separated from
residential areas by existing Interstate highway, frontage roads and railroad tracks/embankments.
Key 4. Historic Properties, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. Consultation with MT SHPO documented in Attachment A, pages A39-A44..
5
Key 5. Changes in Demographic (population) Characteristics (e.g., quantity, distribution,
density) N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The proposed project is not expected to effect changes in Demographic Characteristics. It is designed in response to projected
demographic changes and resulting needs (CTA and MXD, 2012). The phased approach will be need/market-driven.
Key 6. Environmental Justice – (Does the project avoid placing lower income households in
areas where environmental degradation has occurred, such as adjacent to brownfield sites?)
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The project’s goal is to serve projected
population growth with economic development consisting of manufacturing, light industrial, office/tech, commercial, and recreational land uses. Placement of these facilities (rather
than residential development) within the CGWA (see Physical Environment #2) is consistent with the goal of Environmental Justice.
Key 7. General Housing Conditions - Quality, Quantity, Affordability
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The project’s goal is to serve projected
population growth with economic development consisting of manufacturing, light industrial, office/tech, commercial, and recreational land uses.
Key 8. Displacement or Relocation of Businesses or Residents
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The existing project area consists of a majority of undeveloped property with some abandoned farm outbuildings. Also, included in
the project area is a private 5-acre parcel owned by the Mandeville Family Trust. A single family home and farm outbuildings are located on the parcel. The land use plan assumes
the parcel will be sold as the development is phased in.
Key 9. Public Health and Safety
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. Access and roads, buildings and utilities will be designed to standards to ensure public health and safety.
Key 10. Lead Based Paint and/or Asbestos N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. If lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials are encountered during demolition of the abandoned farm outbuildings
or removal of solid waste at the site (see Physical Environment #2), a certified contractor will be employed for the removal and appropriate disposal of those materials.
Key 11. Local Employment & Income Patterns - Quantity and Distribution of Employment, Economic Impact B
Comments and Source of Information: This project will have short term beneficial
economic impact though construction and long-term beneficial economic impact through provision of a space supportive and attractive to new businesses.
6
Key 12. Local & State Tax Base & Revenues
B
Comments and Source of Information: New businesses attracted to the North Park project location will increase local and state tax base and revenues.
Key 13. Educational Facilities - Schools, Colleges, Universities
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. New businesses attracted to the North
Park project location may develop a synergy (through internships, research partnerships) with MSU.
Key 14. Commercial and Industrial Facilities - Production & Activity, Growth or Decline B
Comments and Source of Information: The North Park Project will directly support growth of
commercial and industrial facility production and activity.
Key 15. Health Care – Medical Services
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The project’s goal is to serve projected
population growth with economic development consisting of manufacturing, light industrial, office/tech, commercial, and recreational land uses. It is anticipated that Health Care –
Medical Services will increase capacity independently of this project, to serve the same projected population growth, as the need arises.
Key 16. Social Services – Governmental Services (e.g., demand on)
M
Comments and Source of Information: Additional government services will be required for
operation and maintenance of water, sewage collection, and transportation systems. Mitigation of these additional services will be through connection fees and monthly user
costs.
Key 17. Social Structures & Mores (Standards of Social Conduct/Social Conventions) N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The project’s goal is to serve projected population growth with recreational, business, and commercial space that is compatible with
the Bozeman community and Bozeman growth plans (City of Bozeman, 2009).
Key
18. Land Use Compatibility (e.g., growth, land use change, development activity, adjacent
land uses and potential conflicts) B
Comments and Source of Information: North Park is an “infill” project, using currently vacant (ag) land that is located within areas of Bozeman development. The proposed North
Park project will comply with the Bozeman Community Plan (City of Bozeman, 2009), City of Bozeman regulations (City of Bozeman, 2013), and review of the City of Bozeman
Department of Planning and Community Development and Planning Board. Public input was solicited through several public meetings (CTA and MXD, 2012). The project will
change land uses on the parcel and likely in the near vicinity of the development.
7
Key 19. Energy Resources – Consumption and Conservation
B, A
Comments and Source of Information: Design of the project includes a rail line and rail spur, which will encourage rail transport (more energy-efficient than road haul). Increased
business and development of the parcels will increase energy consumption.
Key 20. Solid Waste Management
A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Additional solid waste will be created by the
businesses that will be attracted to locate at the North Park facility. The additional solid waste will be mitigated by revenues generated for county disposal operations, recycling and
encouragement / support of “green” industries.
Key 21. Wastewater Treatment – Sewage System P, A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Additional demand on City of Bozeman WWTP will
be created by the businesses that will be attracted to locate at the North Park facility. The City of Bozeman sewage collection system will be extended into the project to provide
service to new properties. The additional demand will be mitigated by revenues generated from hook-up fees and usage bills for WWTP operations, maintenance and upgrades.
Key 22. Storm Water – Surface Drainage
P, A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Site grading and storm water runoff plans will be developed to ensure that all storm water runoff from the site will be appropriately treated
and returned to groundwater via infiltration ponds or to storm water conveyances and drainage swales. Design will maximize groundwater augmentation through infiltration and
minimize impacts of surface water runoff to the municipal stormwater sewer system.
Key 23. Community Water Supply P, A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Additional demand on City of Bozeman Water will be
created by the businesses that will be attracted to locate at the North Park facility. The City of Bozeman water system will be extended into the project area to provide service to the new properties. The additional demand will be mitigated by revenues generated from hook-up fees and usage bills for water supply operations, maintenance and upgrades.
Key 24. Public Safety – Police
A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Additional demand on City of Bozeman Police will be created by the businesses that will be attracted to locate at the North Park facility. The
additional demand will be mitigated by revenues generated from City taxes.
8
Key 25. Fire Protection – Hazards
P, A, M
Comments and Source of Information: Additional demand on City of Bozeman Fire Department will be created by the businesses that will be attracted to locate at the North
Park facility. New fire hydrants located throughout the project area and fire services to lots
will aid in fire protection for any new structure. The additional demand will be mitigated by revenues generated from City taxes.
Key 26. Emergency Medical Services N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The project’s goal is to serve projected
population growth with economic development consisting of manufacturing, light industrial, office/tech, commercial, and recreational land uses. It is anticipated that Emergency Medical Services will increase capacity independently of this project, to serve the same projected population growth, as the need arises.
Key 27. Parks, Playgrounds, & Open Space
B, A
Comments and Source of Information: There will be a loss of agricultural open space. The site design will include green space and current plans include development of recreational
facilities.
Key 28. Cultural Facilities, Cultural Uniqueness & Diversity N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. The project is designed to support the
Bozeman Community as it is, with respect to its existing cultural uniqueness and diversity. No cultural facilities are planned or impacted as part of this development.
Key 29. Transportation Networks and Traffic Flow Conflicts (e.g., rail; auto including local traffic; airport runway clear zones - avoidance of incompatible land use in airport runway clear zones)
P,M,A
Comments and Source of Information: The proposed North Park project will comply with City of Bozeman and Montana Department of Transportation design guidelines for new
transportation system improvements and mitigation of traffic flow conflicts. The project will comply with Montana Rail Link design standards for rail crossings.
Key 30. Consistency with Local Ordinances, Resolutions, or Plans (e.g., conformance with local comprehensive plans, zoning, or capital improvement plans) N
Comments and Source of Information: : No impact. The proposed North Park project will
comply with the Bozeman Community Plan (City of Bozeman, 2009), City of Bozeman regulations (City of Bozeman, 2013), review of the City of Bozeman Department of Planning
and Community Development and Planning Board
9
Key 31. Is There a Regulatory Action on Private Property Rights as a Result of this Project? (consider options that reduce, minimize, or eliminate the regulation of private property rights.)
N
Comments and Source of Information: No impact. There will be no increase of regulation of private property related to this project, The project will include transfer of some government
property (City of Bozeman; State land will be leased in the near future, but could be sold at some time) to the private sector.
References:
City of Bozeman, 2013a, Unified Development Ordinance, http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Planning/Land-Use#.UiYEXNLUmSo
City of Bozeman, 2013b, City of Bozeman Geographical Information System, http://gis.bozeman.net/maps/
City of Bozeman, 2009, Bozeman Community Plan,
http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/37839/Page1.aspx
CTA and MXD, 2012, North Park Properties Concept Land Use Plan, August 2012, prepared for City of Bozeman and Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation,
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/bozemandailychronicle.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/e
ditorial/7/3f/73fbf22e-6846-11e2-bf06-001a4bcf887a/5104c1d1e4e1a.pdf.pdf
DNRC – see Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation
Hyalite Environmental, LLP, 2012, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, State of Montana DNRC
City of Bozeman Mandeville Properties, Bozeman, MT, prepared for Craig Campbell, DNRC,
September 2012, 374 pp. MBMG – see Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
MNHP – see Montana Natural Heritage Program
Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation, 2013, Guide to Stream Permitting in Montana,
http://dnrc.mt.gov/Permits/StreamPermitting/
Montana Natural Heritage Program, 2013, Natural Heritage Map Viewer Wetland and Riparian Mapping,
http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=8
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2013, Ground Water Information Center,
http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/
USDA – see United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS – see United States Fish and Wildlife Service
10
United States Department of Agriculture, 2013, Web Soil Survey,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm?TARGET_APP=Web_Soil_Survey_applicati
on_khywn5555clxnl45sh4fcvm1
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013, National Wetlands Inventory, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
Vuke, Susan M., Jeffrey D. Lonn, Richard B. Berg and Karl S. Kellogg, 2002, Preliminary Geologic Map
of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southwestern MT: Montana Bureau of Mines an dGeology Open File Report MBMG 469,
http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/mbmgcat/public/ListCitation.asp?pub_id=11340&
Attachment A
Uniform Environmental Checklist
North Park Properties,
City of Bozeman and MT Department of Natural Resource Conservation
Table of Contents
Item Page Regional map showing project location A1
2011 Aerial photo of project site A2
2011 USGS topo map of site A3
City of Bozeman 1-foot topographic data, no date A5 Soils – suitabilities and limitations, small commercial buildings A6
Soils – suitabilities and limitations, local roads and streets A10
Existing utilities onsite A15
MBMG GWIC depth to static water level A16
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map from Bozeman GIS A17
MT Natural Heritage Program wetland and riparian map A18
Gallatin Local Water Quality District wetland and riparian map A19
National Resource Conservation Service (USDA) wetland map A20
National Wetland Inventory (USFS) wetland map A21 Soils – farmland classification of site A22
Soils – farmland classification within 1 mile of site A26
Consultation with Montana Natural Heritage Program A31
USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species, Gallatin County A38
Consultation with Montana State Historic Preservation Office A39
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A1
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A2
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A3
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A4
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A5
Small Commercial Buildings—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 1 of 5
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
9
0
0
50
6
1
1
0
0
50
6
1
3
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
1
7
0
0
50
6
1
9
0
0
50
6
2
1
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
2
5
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
9
0
0
50
6
1
1
0
0
50
6
1
3
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
1
7
0
0
50
6
1
9
0
0
50
6
2
1
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
2
5
0
0
495100 495300 495500 495700 495900 496100 496300 496500
495100 495300 495500 495700 495900 496100 496300 496500
45° 43' 0'' N
11
1
°
3
'
5
1
'
'
W
45° 43' 0'' N
11
1
°
2
'
4
1
'
'
W
45° 41' 54'' N
11
1
°
3
'
5
1
'
'
W
45° 41' 54'' N
11
1
°
2
'
4
1
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0450900 1800 2700Feet
0100200 400 600Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,840 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A6
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Apr 18, 2012
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2011—Aug 19,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Small Commercial Buildings—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 2 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A7
Small Commercial Buildings
Small Commercial Buildings— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622)
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
50B Blackdog silt
loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Not limited Blackdog (90%)128.4 43.4%
Meagher (4%)
Bowery (3%)
Quagle (3%)
57B Turner loam, 0 to
4 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Turner (85%)Shrink-swell
(0.50)
82.9 28.0%
Beaverton (5%)Large stones
(0.20)
Corbly (5%)Large stones
(0.01)
450C Blackdog-
Quagle silt
loams, 4 to 8
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Blackdog (60%)Slope (0.50)45.0 15.2%
Quagle (30%)Slope (0.50)
Beanlake (5%)Slope (0.50)
Bowery (3%)Slope (0.12)
Anceney (2%)Slope (0.50)
Large stones
(0.01)
457A Turner loam,
moderately
wet, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Turner (85%)Shrink-swell
(0.50)
2.5 0.9%
Beaverton (5%)Large stones
(0.20)
Turner (5%)Shrink-swell
(0.50)
509B Enbar loam, 0 to
4 percent
slopes
Very limited Enbar (85%)Flooding (1.00)36.9 12.5%
Nythar (10%)Flooding (1.00)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Shrink-swell
(0.50)
Totals for Area of Interest 295.7 100.0%
Small Commercial Buildings— Summary by Rating Value
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Somewhat limited 130.4 44.1%
Not limited 128.4 43.4%
Small Commercial Buildings—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 3 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A8
Small Commercial Buildings— Summary by Rating Value
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Very limited 36.9 12.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 295.7 100.0%
Description
Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and
do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings
of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth
of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the
soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement
and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties
that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and
compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil). The
properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to
a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of
bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use.
"Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the
specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected.
"Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately
favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by
special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more
features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary
by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer
are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is
shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those
that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition
of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better
understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
Small Commercial Buildings—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 4 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A9
Local Roads and Streets—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 1 of 6
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
9
0
0
50
6
1
1
0
0
50
6
1
3
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
1
7
0
0
50
6
1
9
0
0
50
6
2
1
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
2
5
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
9
0
0
50
6
1
1
0
0
50
6
1
3
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
1
7
0
0
50
6
1
9
0
0
50
6
2
1
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
2
5
0
0
495100 495300 495500 495700 495900 496100 496300 496500
495100 495300 495500 495700 495900 496100 496300 496500
45° 43' 0'' N
11
1
°
3
'
5
1
'
'
W
45° 43' 0'' N
11
1
°
2
'
4
1
'
'
W
45° 41' 54'' N
11
1
°
3
'
5
1
'
'
W
45° 41' 54'' N
11
1
°
2
'
4
1
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0450900 1800 2700Feet
0100200 400 600Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,840 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A10
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Apr 18, 2012
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2011—Aug 19,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Local Roads and Streets—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 2 of 6
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A11
Local Roads and Streets
Local Roads and Streets— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622)
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
50B Blackdog silt
loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Blackdog (90%)Frost action
(0.50)
128.4 43.4%
Meagher (4%)Frost action
(0.50)
Bowery (3%)Frost action
(0.50)
Quagle (3%)Frost action
(0.50)
57B Turner loam, 0 to
4 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Turner (85%)Shrink-swell
(0.50)
82.9 28.0%
Frost action
(0.50)
Beaverton (5%)Large stones
(0.20)
Frost action
(0.50)
Martinsdale (5%)Frost action
(0.50)
Corbly (5%)Large stones
(0.01)
450C Blackdog-
Quagle silt
loams, 4 to 8
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Blackdog (60%)Frost action
(0.50)
45.0 15.2%
Quagle (30%)Frost action
(0.50)
Beanlake (5%)Frost action
(0.50)
Bowery (3%)Frost action
(0.50)
Anceney (2%)Frost action
(0.50)
Large stones
(0.01)
Local Roads and Streets—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 3 of 6
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A12
Local Roads and Streets— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622)
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
457A Turner loam,
moderately
wet, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Turner (85%)Shrink-swell
(0.50)
2.5 0.9%
Frost action
(0.50)
Beaverton (5%)Large stones
(0.20)
Frost action
(0.50)
Turner (5%)Shrink-swell
(0.50)
Frost action
(0.50)
509B Enbar loam, 0 to
4 percent
slopes
Very limited Enbar (85%)Frost action
(1.00)
36.9 12.5%
Flooding (0.40)
Nythar (10%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Frost action
(1.00)
Shrink-swell
(0.50)
Flooding (0.40)
Totals for Area of Interest 295.7 100.0%
Local Roads and Streets— Summary by Rating Value
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Somewhat limited 258.8 87.5%
Very limited 36.9 12.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 295.7 100.0%
Local Roads and Streets—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 4 of 6
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A13
Description
Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light
truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel,
crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible
material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are
based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the
traffic-supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and
grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a
cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large
stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic-supporting capacity are soil
strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear
extensibility (shrink-swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water
table, and ponding.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use.
"Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the
specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected.
"Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately
favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by
special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more
features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary
by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer
are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is
shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those
that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition
of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better
understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Local Roads and Streets—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 5 of 6
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A14
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A15
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A16
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A17
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A18
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A19
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A20
No
r
t
h
P
a
r
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
T
Un
i
f
o
r
m
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
h
e
c
k
l
i
s
t
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Page A21
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 1 of 4
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
9
0
0
50
6
1
1
0
0
50
6
1
3
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
1
7
0
0
50
6
1
9
0
0
50
6
2
1
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
2
5
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
0
9
0
0
50
6
1
1
0
0
50
6
1
3
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
1
7
0
0
50
6
1
9
0
0
50
6
2
1
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
2
5
0
0
495100 495300 495500 495700 495900 496100 496300 496500
495100 495300 495500 495700 495900 496100 496300 496500
45° 43' 0'' N
11
1
°
3
'
5
1
'
'
W
45° 43' 0'' N
11
1
°
2
'
4
1
'
'
W
45° 41' 54'' N
11
1
°
3
'
5
1
'
'
W
45° 41' 54'' N
11
1
°
2
'
4
1
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0450900 1800 2700Feet
0100200 400 600Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,840 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A22
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
Prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed 60
Prime farmland if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
Prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed 60
Prime farmland if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
irrigated and drained
Prime farmland if
irrigated and either
protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if
irrigated and the product
of I (soil erodibility) x C
(climate factor) does not
exceed 60
Prime farmland if
irrigated and reclaimed of
excess salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 2 of 4
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A23
MAP INFORMATION
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Apr 18, 2012
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2011—Aug 19,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 3 of 4
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A24
Farmland Classification
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
50B Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
128.4 43.4%
57B Turner loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Prime farmland if
irrigated
82.9 28.0%
450C Blackdog-Quagle silt
loams, 4 to 8 percent
slopes
Farmland of statewide
importance
45.0 15.2%
457A Turner loam, moderately
wet, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Prime farmland if
irrigated
2.5 0.9%
509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
36.9 12.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 295.7 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies
the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands
are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/3/2013
Page 4 of 4
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A25
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/4/2013
Page 1 of 5
50
5
8
3
0
0
50
5
9
1
0
0
50
5
9
9
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
3
1
0
0
50
6
3
9
0
0
50
6
4
7
0
0
50
5
8
3
0
0
50
5
9
1
0
0
50
5
9
9
0
0
50
6
0
7
0
0
50
6
1
5
0
0
50
6
2
3
0
0
50
6
3
1
0
0
50
6
3
9
0
0
50
6
4
7
0
0
493400 494200 495000 495800 496600 497400 498200
493400 494200 495000 495800 496600 497400 498200
45° 44' 21'' N
11
1
°
5
'
1
9
'
'
W
45° 44' 21'' N
11
1
°
1
'
1
0
'
'
W
45° 40' 30'' N
11
1
°
5
'
1
9
'
'
W
45° 40' 30'' N
11
1
°
1
'
1
0
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
015003000 6000 9000Feet
0 5001000 2000 3000Meters
Map Scale: 1:34,700 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A26
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
Prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed 60
Prime farmland if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if irrigated
and drained
Prime farmland if irrigated
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if irrigated
and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate
factor) does not exceed 60
Prime farmland if irrigated
and reclaimed of excess
salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Not prime farmland
All areas are prime
farmland
Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
protected from flooding or
not frequently flooded
during the growing season
Prime farmland if irrigated
Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
irrigated and drained
Prime farmland if
irrigated and either
protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded
during the growing
season
Prime farmland if
subsoiled, completely
removing the root
inhibiting soil layer
Prime farmland if
irrigated and the product
of I (soil erodibility) x C
(climate factor) does not
exceed 60
Prime farmland if
irrigated and reclaimed of
excess salts and sodium
Farmland of statewide
importance
Farmland of local
importance
Farmland of unique
importance
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/4/2013
Page 2 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A27
MAP INFORMATION
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Apr 18, 2012
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 28, 2011—Aug 19,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/4/2013
Page 3 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A28
Farmland Classification
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
50B Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
1,111.7 27.6%
50C Blackdog silt loam, 4 to 8
percent slopes
Farmland of statewide
importance
12.5 0.3%
53B Amsterdam silt loam, 0 to
4 percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
31.3 0.8%
53C Amsterdam silt loam, 4 to
8 percent slopes
Farmland of statewide
importance
7.9 0.2%
57B Turner loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Prime farmland if
irrigated
259.9 6.5%
64B Straw loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
202.2 5.0%
407A Sudworth-Nesda loams,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Farmland of local
importance
136.9 3.4%
450C Blackdog-Quagle silt
loams, 4 to 8 percent
slopes
Farmland of statewide
importance
187.7 4.7%
450D Blackdog-Brodyk silt
loams, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
Farmland of local
importance
9.9 0.2%
457A Turner loam, moderately
wet, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Prime farmland if
irrigated
201.3 5.0%
506A Saypo silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Farmland of local
importance
22.1 0.5%
509B Enbar loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
340.9 8.5%
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to
4 percent slopes
Prime farmland if
irrigated
138.2 3.4%
511A Fairway silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Prime farmland if
irrigated
17.2 0.4%
512B Enbar-Nythar loams, 0 to
4 percent slopes
Farmland of local
importance
75.2 1.9%
522A Enbar clay loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
All areas are prime
farmland
485.7 12.1%
537A Lamoose silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Farmland of local
importance
90.8 2.3%
542A Blossberg loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Farmland of local
importance
69.2 1.7%
556A Threeriv-Bonebasin
loams, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Not prime farmland 76.4 1.9%
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/4/2013
Page 4 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A29
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Gallatin County Area, Montana (MT622)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
606A Bandy-Riverwash-
Bonebasin complex, 0
to 2 percent slopes
Not prime farmland 216.9 5.4%
748A Hyalite-Beaverton
complex, 0 to 4
percent slopes
Farmland of local
importance
31.9 0.8%
SLF Sanitary landfill Not prime farmland 32.2 0.8%
UL Urban land Not prime farmland 252.8 6.3%
W Water Not prime farmland 14.6 0.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 4,025.2 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies
the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands
are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/4/2013
Page 5 of 5
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A30
Visit the Montana Natural Heritage Program at http://mtnhp.org
P.O. Box 201800 1515 East Sixth Avenue Helena, MT 59620-1800 fax 406.444.0266 tel 406.444.5354 http://mtnhp.org August 22, 2013
Carol Lee-Roark
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
P.O. Box 90 Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730
Dear Carol,
I am writing in response to your recent request regarding Montana Species of Concern in the vicinity of the City of Bozeman - NRDC Mandeville Property, in Section 36, T01S, R05E. I checked our databases for information in this general area and have enclosed 3 species occurrence reports for 3 animal species
of concern, 3 species occurrence reports for 3 plant species of concern, and a map depicting species of
concern and wetland locations. Note that the maps are in Adobe GeoPDF format. With the appropriate
Adobe Reader, it provides a convenient way to query and understand the information presented on the map.
Please keep in mind the following when using and interpreting the enclosed information and maps:
(1) These materials are the result of a search of our database for species of concern that occur in an area defined by the requested township, range and section with an additional one-mile buffer surrounding the requested area. This is done to provide a more inclusive set of records and to capture records
that may be immediately adjacent to the requested area. Please let us know if a buffer greater than 1
mile would be of use to your efforts. Reports are provided for the species of concern that are located
in your requested area with a one-mile buffer. Species of concern outside of this buffered area may be depicted on the map due to the map extent, but are not selected for the SOC report.
(2) On the map, polygons represent one or more source features as well as the locational uncertainty
associated with the source features. A source feature is a point, line, or polygon that is the basic
mapping unit of a Species Occurrence (SO) representation. The recorded location of the occurrence may vary from its true location due to many factors, including the level of expertise of the data collector, differences in survey techniques and equipment used, and the amount and type of
information obtained. Therefore, this inaccuracy is characterized as locational uncertainty, and is
now incorporated in the representation of an SO. If you have a question concerning a specific SO,
please do not hesitate to contact us. (3) This report may include sensitive data, and is not intended for general distribution, publication, or
for use outside of your organization. In particular, public release of specific location information
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A31
Visit the Montana Natural Heritage Program at http://mtnhp.org
may jeopardize the welfare of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or biological
communities.
(4) The accompanying map(s) display land management status, which may differ from ownership. Features shown on this map do not imply public access to any lands.
(5) Additional biological data for the search area(s) may be available from other sources. We suggest
you contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any additional information on threatened and
endangered species (406-449-5225). For additional fisheries information in your area of interest, you may wish to contact Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Park’s Montana Fisheries Information System (phone: 406-444-3373, or web site: http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/).
(6) Additional information on species habitat, ecology and management is available on our web
site in the Plant, Animal, and ecological Systems Field Guides, which we encourage you to
consult for valuable information. You can access these guides at http://mtnhp.org. General
information on any species can be found by accessing the link to NatureServe Explorer.
The results of a data search by the Montana Natural Heritage Program reflect the current status of our
data collection efforts. These results are not intended as a final statement on sensitive species within a given area, or as a substitute for on-site surveys, which may be required for environmental assessments. The information is intended for project screening only with respect to species of concern, and not as a
determination of environmental impacts, which should be gained in consultation with appropriate
agencies and authorities.
In order to help us improve our services to you, we invite you to take a simple survey. The survey is intended to gather some basic information on the value and quality of the information and services you
recently received from the Montana Natural Heritage Program. The survey is short and should not take
more than a few minutes to complete. All information will be kept confidential and will be used
internally to improve the delivery of services and to help document the value of our services. Use this link to go to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RYN8Y8L.
I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Let me know if you would prefer to receive digital
PDF versions of these documents via email. Please feel free to contact me at (406) 444-3290 or via my
e-mail address, below, should you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Miller
Montana Natural Heritage Program
martinm@mt.gov
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A32
Montana Species of ConcernCity of BozemanNRDC Mandeville Property
Map Document: K:\REQUESTS\Requests\14\PRVT\14prvt0045\14prvt0045.mxd (8/22/2013)
Not all legend items may occur on the map.
Features shown on this map do not imply public access toany lands.
This map displays management status, which may varyfrom ownership.
Natural Resource Information System, Montana State Library1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, MT 59620-1800
406 444-5354 http://mtnhp.org mtnhp@mt.gov
10010952
10004220
10040506
15763
120770
55649
10000033
SPECIES OF CONCERN: A polygon feature representing only what isknown from direct observation with a defined level of certaintyregarding the spatial location of the feature.
NonVascular Plants
NonVascular Plants
Vascular Plants
Vascular PlantsInvertebrates
Invertebrates
Amphibians
Amphibians
Fish
FishReptiles
Reptiles
Birds
Birds
Mammals
Mammals
Sites
SitesWetland Types
Lake
River
Freshwater Pond
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Forested Wetland
Riparian Emergent
Riparian Scrub-Shrub
Riparian Forested
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A33
Species of Concern Data Report Thursday, August 22, 2013Visit http://mtnhp.org for additional information.
Report Date:Natural Resource Information System
Montana State Library
PO Box 201800Helena, MT 59620-1800
(406)444-3009 mtnhp@mt.gov
Common Name:
Description:
Mapping Delineation:
View Species in MT Field Guide
General Habitat:Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout
Fish
Mountain streams, rivers, lakes
Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri
Stream reaches and standing water bodies where the species presence has been confrmed through direct capture or where they
are believed to be present based on the professional judgement of a fsheries biologist due to confrmed presence in adjacent
areas. In order to refect the importance of adjacent terrestrial habitats to survival, stream reaches are bufered 100 meters,
standing water bodies greater than 1 acre are bufered 50 meters, and standing water bodies less than 1 acre are bufered 30
meters into the terrestrial habitat based on PACFISH/INFISH Riparian Conservaton Area standards.
Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:
Global: State:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
U.S. Forest Service:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management:FWP CFWCS Tier:
MT PIF Code:
Click Status for ExplanationsSpecies Status
S2
G4T2
1
SENSITIVE
SENSITIVE
First Observation Date:
Last Observation Date:
Species Occurence Map Label:
SO Number:
Acreage:
Species Occurrences
1,591
10040506
Common Name:
Description:
Mapping Delineation:
View Species in MT Field Guide
General Habitat:Hooked Snowfly
Invertebrates
Alpine / Mountain streams
Isocapnia crinita
Confrmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age. Point observaton locaton is bufered by a
minimum distance of 100 meters in order to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to
support other individuals and otherwise is bufered by the locatonal uncertainty associated with the observaton up to a
maximum distance of 10,000 meters.
Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:
Global: State:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
U.S. Forest Service:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management:FWP CFWCS Tier:
MT PIF Code:
Click Status for ExplanationsSpecies Status
S2
G5
First Observation Date:
Last Observation Date:
Species Occurence Map Label:
SO Number:
Acreage:
Species Occurrences
1925-01-01
1977-12-31
585,264
27,805
10004220
Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern Report 8/22/2013 Page 1 of 2
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A34
Species of Concern Data Report Thursday, August 22, 2013Visit http://mtnhp.org for additional information.
Report Date:Natural Resource Information System
Montana State Library
PO Box 201800Helena, MT 59620-1800
(406)444-3009 mtnhp@mt.gov
Common Name:
Description:
Mapping Delineation:
View Species in MT Field Guide
General Habitat:Western Pearlshell
Invertebrates
Mountain streams, rivers
Margaritifera falcata
Stream reaches where the species presence has been confrmed through direct capture. In order to refect the importance of
adjacent terrestrial habitats to survival, stream reaches are bufered 100 meters into the terrestrial habitat based on
PACFISH/INFISH Riparian Conservaton Area standards.
Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:
Global:
State:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
U.S. Forest Service:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management:FWP CFWCS Tier:
MT PIF Code:
Click Status for ExplanationsSpecies Status
S2G4G5
1
SENSITIVE
First Observation Date:
Last Observation Date:
Species Occurence Map Label:
SO Number:
Acreage:
Species Occurrences
1998-09-17
1998-09-17
2
23
10010952
Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern Report 8/22/2013 Page 2 of 2
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A35
Species of Concern Data Report Thursday, August 22, 2013Visit http://mtnhp.org for additional information.
Report Date:Natural Resource Information System
Montana State Library
PO Box 201800Helena, MT 59620-1800
(406)444-3009 mtnhp@mt.gov
Common Name:
Description:
Mapping Delineation:
View Species in MT Field Guide
General Habitat:Rocky Mountain Twinpod
Vascular Plants
Gravelly slopes/talus (Montane/subalpine)
Physaria saximontana var. dentata
Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any
pre-defned distance. Individual clusters of plants mapped at fne spatal scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50
meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distnct areas of habitat or terrain features.
Point observatons are bufered to encompass any locatonal uncertainty associated with the observaton.
Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:
Global:
State:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
U.S. Forest Service:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management:
Click Status for ExplanationsSpecies Status
S3
G3T3
First Observation Date:
Last Observation Date:
Species Occurence Map Label:
SO Number:
SO Rank:
Species Occurrences
06/29/1899
06/29/1899
3
120770
Acreage: 49,683
H
Common Name:
Description:
Mapping Delineation:
View Species in MT Field Guide
General Habitat:Small Yellow Lady's-slipper
Vascular Plants
Cypripedium parviflorum
Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:
Global:
State:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
U.S. Forest Service:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management:
Click Status for ExplanationsSpecies Status
S3S4
G5 SENSITIVE
First Observation Date:
Last Observation Date:
Species Occurence Map Label:
SO Number:
SO Rank:
Species Occurrences
01/01/2005
07/05/2010
86
55649
Acreage: 1
U
Common Name:
Description:
Mapping Delineation:
View Species in MT Field Guide
General Habitat:Slender Wedgegrass
Vascular Plants
Mesic sites (low-elevation)
Sphenopholis intermedia
Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any
pre-defned distance. Individual clusters of plants mapped at fne spatal scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50
meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distnct areas of habitat or terrain features.
Point observatons are bufered to encompass any locatonal uncertainty associated with the observaton.
Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern Report 8/22/2013 Page 1 of 2
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A36
Species of Concern Data Report Thursday, August 22, 2013Visit http://mtnhp.org for additional information.
Report Date:Natural Resource Information System
Montana State Library
PO Box 201800Helena, MT 59620-1800
(406)444-3009 mtnhp@mt.gov
Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:
Global:
State:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
U.S. Forest Service:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management:
Click Status for ExplanationsSpecies Status
S3S4
G5
First Observation Date:
Last Observation Date:
Species Occurence Map Label:
SO Number:
SO Rank:
Species Occurrences
07/25/1898
07/26/1905
1
15763
Acreage: 49,683
H
Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern Report 8/22/2013 Page 2 of 2
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A37
Environmental Conservation Online SystemConserving the Nature of America Enter Search Term(s):
Search
ECOS>•Species Reports>•Species By County Report•
Species By County Report
The following report contains Species that are known to or are believed to occur in this county. Species with range unrefined past the state level are now excluded from this report. If you are looking for the Section 7 range (for Section 7 Consultations), please visit the IPaC application.
County: Gallatin, MT
Group Name Population Status Lead Office Recovery Plan Name Recovery Plan Action Status Recovery Plan Stage
Birds
Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus)
entireCandidate
Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office
- - -
Sprague's pipit (Anthus
spragueii) Candidate
North Dakota Ecological Services Field Office
- - -
Conifers and Cycads
Whitebark pine (Pinus
albicaulis) Candidate
Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office
- - -
Flowering Plants
Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes
diluvialis)
Threatened
Utah Ecological Services Field Office
Ute Ladies'-Tresses Draft Recovery Plan View Implementation Progress Draft
Mammals Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)
lower 48 States, except where listed as an experimental population or delisted
Threatened Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator
Revised Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan View Implementation Progress Final Revision 1
Gray wolf (Canis lupus)
Northern Rocky Mountain DPS (delisted, except WY)
Recovery Office Of The Regional Director - - -
Canada Lynx (Lynx
canadensis)
(Contiguous U.S. DPS)Threatened
Montana Ecological Services Field Office
Recovery Outline for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Recovery efforts in progress, but no implementation information yet to display. Outline
North American wolverine (Gulo gulo
luscus)
Proposed Threatened
Montana Ecological Services Field Office
- - -
Export options: CSV | EXCEL | XML | PDF
ECOS Home | About ECOS | Contact Us
Page 1of 2Species By County Report
9/4/2013http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=30031
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A38
CKLR
From:"CKLR" <roark@imt.net>To:"CST" <cthelen@q.com>Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:11 PMAttach:2013082204.pdf; CRABS.pdf; CRIS.pdfSubject:Fw: file search request
Page 1of 1
9/3/2013
----- Original Message ----- From: Murdo, Damon To: 'CKLR' Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:05 PM Subject: RE: file search request
August 22, 2013
Carol Lee-Roark Hyalite Environmental PO Box 90 Gallatin Gateway MT 59730 RE: CITY OF BOZEMAN-NRDC MANDEVILLE PROPERTY PROJECT. SHPO Project #: 2013082204 Dear Carol:
I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above-cited project located in Section 36, T2S R5E. According to our records there have been a few previously recorded sites within the designated search locales.
In addition to the sites there have been a few previously conducted cultural resource inventories done in the areas. I’ve attached a list of these sites and reports. If you would like any further information regarding these sites or reports you may contact me at the number listed below. It is SHPO’s position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If any structures are to be altered and are over fifty years old we would recommend that they be recorded and a determination of their eligibility be made. Based on previous inventory of the area we feel that there is a low likelihood cultural properties will be impacted. We, therefore, feel that a recommendation for a cultural resource inventory is unwarranted at this time. However, should cultural materials be inadvertently discovered during this project we would ask that our office be contacted and the site investigated. If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-mail at
dmurdo@mt.gov. I have attached an invoice for the file search. Thank you for consulting with us. Sincerely, Damon Murdo Cultural Records Manager State Historic Preservation Office
File: MISC/FILE SEARCH/2013
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A39
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Cultural Resource Annotated Bibliography System
08/22/2013
CRABS Township, Range, Section Report Report Date:
ROSSILLON
DEAVER
RENNIE
PASSMANN
RENNIE
MOORE
RENNIE
RENNIE
MITZI
KEN, ET AL.
PATRICK J.
DORI
PATRICK J.
CONNIE N., ET AL.
PATRICK J.
PATRICK
1
10
12
9
3
2
4
6
20
1
28
1988
1988
2001
1994
2000
1986
2005
2006
A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN OVERPASS AT BOZEMAN
US SPRINT FIBER OPTIC CABLE PROJECT, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON TO FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA;
MONTANA CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT AND CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES (MAY 1988
REPORT ENTITLED PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PEDESTRIAN SAMPLE OF THE SPRINT LINE IN
MONTANA BY SHERRI DEAVER ET AL IS ATTACHED)
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF THE PROPOSED MANDEVILLE LAND EXCHANGE: GALLATIN
COUNTY MONTANA
CHERRY RIVER FAS
PROPOSED LEWIS AND CLARK SUBDIVISION IN GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
EAST VALLEY CENTER DRIVE
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF A PORTION OF SECTION 36, T1S/R5E: IN GALLATIN
COUNTY, MONTNA
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF THE ANNEXATION OF STATE LANDS IN SECTION 36/T1S/R5E:
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
GA
ZZ
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
CRABS Document Number:
4
2
5
6
5
4
5
5
3435
10786
24541
16127
22781
3430
27807
28505
BRS205-1(5)28
2001-3-9
RS235-1(1)0
2005-3-4
2006-3-4
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
Agency Document Number:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Township:
Township:
Township:
Township:
Township:
Township:
Township:
Township:
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Range:
Range:
Range:
Range:
Range:
Range:
Range:
Range:
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Section:
Section:
Section:
Section:
Section:
Section:
Section:
Section:
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A40
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Cultural Resource Information Systems
08/22/2013
Report Date:CRIS Township, Range, Section Report
24GA0786
24GA1096
Site #
1
1
Twp
S
S
5
5
Rng
E
E
36
36
Sec
SE
Qs
Historic
Vehicular/Foot Bridge
Historic Railroad
Site Type1
Null
Null
Site Type 2
1930-1939
Historic More Than One
Decade
Time Period
MDOT Other
Private
Owner
Unresolved
CD
NR Status
North Park Properties Project, Bozeman, MT
Uniform Environmental Checklist Attachment A Page A41
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATES
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Total Quantity Total
Demolition- Street & Sidewalk 500SY4.25$ 2,125.00$ 5002,125.00$ 0-$
Demolition - Misc.1LS12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 0.56,000.00$ 0.56,000.00$
Connection to Existing 5EA3,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 26,000.00$
Bore and Jack: 36" casing and parts220LF500.00$ 110,000.00$ 220110,000.00$ 0-$
8" Ductile Iron Pipe 528LF75.00$ 39,600.00$ 52839,600.00$ 0-$
10" Ductile Iron Pipe 5863LF80.00$ 469,040.00$ 77361,840.00$ 5090407,200.00$
12" Ductile Iron Pipe 4305LF110.00$ 473,550.00$ 4305473,550.00$ 0-$
8" Gate Valve (MJ)2EA1,900.00$ 3,800.00$ 23,800.00$ 0-$
10" Gate Valve (MJ)13EA2,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 36,000.00$ 1020,000.00$
12" Gate Valve (MJ)9EA2,700.00$ 24,300.00$ 1027,000.00$ -1(2,700.00)$
12"x10" Cross (MJ)1EA1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 11,600.00$ 0-$
12"x12" Tee (MJ)2EA1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 22,400.00$ 0-$
12"x10" Tee (MJ)3EA1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 22,000.00$
10"x10" Tee (MJ)1EA900.00$ 900.00$ 0-$ 1900.00$
10" bends (MJ)20EA800.00$ 16,000.00$ 0-$ 2016,000.00$
12" bends (MJ)20EA1,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 2020,000.00$ 0-$
Pressure Reducing Valve Station 1EA40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 140,000.00$ 0-$
Fire Hydrant Assemblies (Hydrant, tee, and lead)22EA6,500.00$ 143,000.00$ 1278,000.00$ 1065,000.00$
Fire Service Connections 17EA3,500.00$ 59,500.00$ 517,500.00$ 1242,000.00$
Domestic Service Connections 17EA2,000.00$ 34,000.00$ 510,000.00$ 1224,000.00$
Mandeville Creek Crossings 4EA1,200.00$ 4,800.00$ 11,200.00$ 33,600.00$
Underground Utility Crossings - YPL & NWE4EA700.00$ 2,800.00$ 21,400.00$ 21,400.00$
Construction Item Sub-total1,503,415.00$ 912,015.00$ 591,400.00$
0.2Admin & Contingency (20%)300,683.00$ 182,403.00$ 118,280.00$
Construction Cost (2014)1,804,098.00$ 1,094,418.00$ 709,680.00$
1.1249Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)2,029,429.84$ 1,231,110.81$ 798,319.03$
0.15Engineering Services (15%)304,414.48$ 184,666.62$ 119,747.85$
Alternative Estimate2,333,844.32$ 1,415,777.43$ 918,066.89$
Annual Operation Expenditures
Minor Maintenance 1YR1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Major Maintenance 0.33YR6,000.00$ 1,980.00$
Subtotal2,980.00$
Factor F Value O&M PWAlt PW Total
20 Year Present Worth Analysis (P/A,4,20)13.590340,499.09$ 2,374,343.41$
Engineering Services Breakout
% of Eng Design% of Proj EngEngineering Phase
5%Survey 9,893.47$
20%30% Schematic Design39,573.88$
10%Environmental / Permitting19,786.94$
65%Final Design 128,615.12$
100%65%Design Sub-Total 197,869.41$
5%Bidding & Contractual15,220.72$
30%Construction Administration91,324.34$
100%Total to Project Costs304,414.48$
Water Distribution - Improvements Phase IPhase II
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Total Quantity Total
Demolition- Misc 1LS5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 0.52,500.00$ 0.52,500.00$
Connect to Existing Manhole 1EA2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 0-$
Bore and Jack: 36" casing and parts220LF500.00$ 110,000.00$ 220110,000.00$ 0-$
8" SDR 35 PVC Main 4713LF70.00$ 329,910.00$ 115080,500.00$ 3563249,410.00$
10" SDR 35 PVC Main 1706LF80.00$ 136,480.00$ 0-$ 1706136,480.00$
12" SDR 35 PVC Main 2658LF90.00$ 239,220.00$ 2658239,220.00$ 0-$
48" Manhole 31EA6,000.00$ 186,000.00$ 1696,000.00$ 1590,000.00$
All-Weather Access Road 2222SY10.00$ 22,220.00$ 222222,220.00$ 0-$
Service Connections 17EA1,600.00$ 27,200.00$ 1117,600.00$ 69,600.00$
Mandeville Creek Crossings 3EA1,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 11,500.00$ 23,000.00$
Underground Utility Crossings - YPL & NWE4EA500.00$ 2,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$
Construction Item Sub-total1,065,030.00$ 573,040.00$ 491,990.00$
0.2Admin & Contingency (20%)213,006.00$ 114,608.00$ 98,398.00$
Construction Cost (2014)1,278,036.00$ 687,648.00$ 590,388.00$
1.1249Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)1,437,662.70$ 773,535.24$ 664,127.46$
0.15Engineering Services (15%)215,649.40$ 116,030.29$ 99,619.12$
Alternative Estimate1,653,312.10$ 889,565.52$ 763,746.58$
Annual Operation Expenditures
Jetting (2 years)0.2YR10,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Subtotal2,000.00$
Factor F Value O&M PWAlt PW Total
20 Year Present Worth Analysis (P/A,4,20)13.590327,180.60$ 1,680,492.70$
Engineering Services Breakout
% of Eng Design% of Proj EngEngineering Phase
5%Survey 7,008.61$
20%30% Schematic Design28,034.42$
10%Environmental / Permitting14,017.21$
65%Final Design91,111.87$
100%65%Design Sub-Total140,172.11$
5%Bidding & Contractual10,782.47$
30%Construction Administration64,694.82$
100%Total to Project Costs215,649.40$
Sanitary Collection - Improvements Phase IPhase II
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Total Quantity Total
Demolition - Misc.1LS2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 0.5 1,000.00$ 0.5 1,000.00$
15" SDR 35 PVC Main 1050LF60.00$ 63,000.00$ 756 45,360.00$ 294 17,640.00$
18" SDR 35 PVC Main 1830LF65.00$ 118,950.00$ 942 61,230.00$ 888 57,720.00$
24" SDR 35 PVC Main 1562LF70.00$ 109,340.00$ 818 57,260.00$ 744 52,080.00$
30" SDR 35 PVC Main 2430LF75.00$ 182,250.00$ 1185 88,875.00$ 1245 93,375.00$
36" SDR 35 PVC Main 2583LF80.00$ 206,640.00$ 2112 168,960.00$ 471 37,680.00$
42" RCP Main 2658LF100.00$ 265,800.00$ 2356 235,600.00$ 302 30,200.00$
48" RCP Main 383LF125.00$ 47,875.00$ 383 47,875.00$ 0 -$
48" Manhole 20EA6,000.00$ 120,000.00$ 9 54,000.00$ 11 66,000.00$
60" Manhole 12EA7,500.00$ 90,000.00$ 1 7,500.00$ 11 82,500.00$
72" Manhole 20EA9,500.00$ 190,000.00$ 17 161,500.00$ 3 28,500.00$
FES 6EA9,500.00$ 57,000.00$ 4 38,000.00$ 2 19,000.00$
Detention Pond (includes outlet structure)2EA40,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 2 80,000.00$ 0 -$
Standard COB Storm Inlet 30EA3,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 16 48,000.00$ 14 42,000.00$
Construction Item Sub-total1,622,855.00$ 1,095,160.00$ 527,695.00$
0.2Admin & Contingency (20%)324,571.00$ 219,032.00$ 105,539.00$
Construction Cost (2014)1,947,426.00$ 1,314,192.00$ 633,234.00$
1.1249Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)2,190,659.51$ 1,478,334.58$ 712,324.93$
0.15Engineering Services (15%)328,598.93$ 221,750.19$ 106,848.74$
Alternative Estimate2,519,258.43$ 1,700,084.77$ 819,173.67$
Annual Operation Expenditures
Minor Repair & Cleaning 1YR1,200.00$ 1,200.00$
Subtotal1,200.00$
Factor F Value O&M PWAlt PW Total
20 Year Present Worth Analysis (P/A,4,20)13.590316,308.36$ 2,535,566.79$
Engineering Services Breakout
% of Eng Design% of Proj EngEngineering Phase
5%Survey 10,679.47$
20%30% Schematic Design42,717.86$
10%Environmental / Permitting21,358.93$
65%Final Design138,833.05$
100%65%Design Sub-Total213,589.30$
5%Bidding & Contractual16,429.95$
30%Construction Administration98,579.68$
100%Total to Project Costs328,598.93$
Storm Water- Improvements Phase IPhase II
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Quantity Total Quantity Total
Excavation 22000CY5.00$ 110,000.00$ 1100055,000.00$ 1100055,000.00$
Subgrade Preparation 67500SY2.00$ 135,000.00$ 3350067,000.00$ 3400068,000.00$
Geo-textile Fabric 67500SY1.50$ 101,250.00$ 3350034000
3" Minus Uncrushed Sub-base Course (1' thck)22500CY 25.00$ 562,500.00$ 11167279,175.00$ 11333283,325.00$
1" Minus Crushed Base Course (6" thick)11250CY30.00$ 337,500.00$ 5583167,490.00$ 5667170,010.00$
Asphalt Concrete Pavement 4" Thickness57520SY17.00$ 977,840.00$ 28152478,584.00$ 29368499,256.00$
Curb and Gutter 27,000LF12.00$ 324,000.00$ 13400160,800.00$ 13600163,200.00$
Sidewalk 125639SF7.00$ 879,473.00$ 60163421,141.00$ 65476458,332.00$
Signs 54EA1,250.00$ 67,500.00$ 2733,750.00$ 2733,750.00$
Striping 13500LF5.00$ 67,500.00$ 670033,500.00$ 680034,000.00$
Street Lighting 10EA5,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 525,000.00$ 525,000.00$
Railroad Crossings 1LS100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 1100,000.00$ 0-$
Trail Systems 1LS50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 0.525,000.00$ 0.525,000.00$
Box Culverts - Mandeville Creek Crossings3EA30,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 260,000.00$
Intersection Improvements @ HWY99 and 7th Avenue2EA 50,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 2100,000.00$ 0-$
Construction Item Sub-total3,952,563.00$ 1,976,440.00$ 1,874,873.00$
0.2Admin & Contingency (20%)790,512.60$ 395,288.00$ 374,974.60$
Construction Cost (2014)4,743,075.60$ 2,371,728.00$ 2,249,847.60$
1.1249Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)5,335,485.74$ 2,667,956.83$ 2,530,853.57$
0.15Engineering Services (15%)800,322.86$ 400,193.52$ 379,628.03$
Alternative Estimate6,135,808.60$ 3,068,150.35$ 2,910,481.60$
Annual Operation Expenditures
Pavement, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, and Lighting 1 YR3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Subtotal3,000.00$
Factor F Value O&M PWAlt PW Total
20 Year Present Worth Analysis (P/A,4,20)13.590340,770.90$ 6,176,579.50$
Engineering Services Breakout
% of Eng Design% of Proj EngEngineering Phase
5%Survey 26,010.49$
20%30% Schematic Design104,041.97$
10%Environmental / Permitting52,020.99$
65%Final Design338,136.41$
100%65%Design Sub-Total520,209.86$
5%Bidding & Contractual40,016.14$
30%Construction Administration240,096.86$
100%Total to Project Costs800,322.86$
Transportation - Improvements Phase IPhase II
Capital Expenditures Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Dry Utility Improvements 1LS1,250,000.00$ 1,250,000.00$
Construction Item Sub-total1,250,000.00$
0.2Admin & Contingency (20%)250,000.00$
Construction Cost (2014)1,500,000.00$
1.1249Adjusted for Annual Inflation (2017, 4%)1,687,350.00$
0.15Engineering Services (15%)253,102.50$
Alternative Estimate1,940,452.50$
Annual Operation Expenditures
Minor Maintenance 1YR100.00$ 100.00$
Major Maintenance (5 Year)0.2YR1,500.00$ 300.00$
Subtotal400.00$
Factor F Value O&M PWAlt PW Total
20 Year Present Worth Analysis (P/A,4,20)13.59035,436.12$ 1,945,888.62$
Engineering Services Breakout
% of Eng Design% of Proj EngEngineering Phase
5%Survey 8,225.83$
20%30% Schematic Design32,903.33$
10%Environmental / Permitting16,451.66$
65%Final Design106,935.81$
100%65%Design Sub-Total164,516.63$
5%Bidding & Contractual12,655.13$
30%Construction Administration75,930.75$
100%Total to Project Costs253,102.50$
Power, Gas, & Communications - Improvements
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX E
AGENCY LETTERS
Sent to:Date
Response
Received
City of Bozeman Public Schools 8/29/2013
Gallatin County Floodplain Administrator 8/29/2013 9/11/2013
Gallatin County Water Quality District 8/29/2013
City of Bozeman Planning Department 8/29/2013
Department of Commerce
Economic Information Center 8/29/2013
Department of Commerce, TSEP Manager 8/29/2013
Department of Commerce, CDBG Program Manager8/29/2013
DEQ Permitting & Compliance Division 8/29/2013 9/26/2013
Depart. Of Fish Wildlife & Parks Region 3 8/29/2013 10/2/2013
Depart. Of Natural Resources and Conservation 8/29/2013
Department of Transportation 8/29/2013
State Historic Preservation Office 8/29/2013 9/3/2013
Natural Resource Conservation Service 8/29/2013
US Army Corps of Eng. Omaha District 8/29/2013 8/30/2013
US Fish & Wildlife Service, Ecological Service 8/29/2013
Federal Highway Administration
Western Federal Lands Highway Division 8/29/2013
Montana Rail Link, Inc 8/29/2013
Prospera Business Network 8/29/2013
City of Bozeman Engineering Department 8/29/2013
NORTHPARK_PER AGENCY CONCERN LETTERS
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX F
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX G
CITY OF BOZEMAN FINANCIAL DATA
N 19TH AVE
INTERSTATE 90 HWY
W OAK ST
N 7TH AVE
W MAIN ST
BAXTER LN
W COLLEGE ST
E MAIN ST
N ROUSE AVE
FRONTAGE RD
DURSTON RD
BRIDGER DR
S 11TH AVE
S 19TH AVE
S CHURCH AVE
S WILLSON AVE
N 11TH AVE
W PEACH ST
E OAK ST
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y C
E
N
T
E
R R
D
E PEACH ST
INTERSTATE 90 HWY
N 7TH AVE
0.5 0 0.50.25 Mile
¯1 inch = 1,800 feet
Legend
Road
Alley
City Limits
Northeast Neighborhood Urban Renewal District
North 7th Tax Increment District
Mandeville Farms Tax Increment District
Downtown Tax Increment District
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
&LW\RI%R]HPDQ )<$SSURYHG%XGJHW
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
&LW\RI%R]HPDQ )<$SSURYHG%XGJHW
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
&LW\RI%R]HPDQ )<$SSURYHG%XGJHW
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX H
PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER DESIGN DATA
CITY WILL SERVE LETTER
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 26 2013
<Name>
Circular
Diameter (ft)= 1.67
Invert Elev (ft)= 100.00
Slope (%)= 0.80
N-Value= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft)= 1.25
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 1.25
Q (cfs)= 11.41
Area (sqft)= 1.76
Velocity (ft/s)= 6.47
Wetted Perim (ft)= 3.50
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 1.28
Top Width (ft)= 1.45
EGL (ft)= 1.90
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft)Section
99.50
100.00
100.50
101.00
101.50
102.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 26 2013
<Name>
Circular
Diameter (ft)= 1.00
Invert Elev (ft)= 100.00
Slope (%)= 0.50
N-Value= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft)= 0.75
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.75
Q (cfs)= 2.297
Area (sqft)= 0.63
Velocity (ft/s)= 3.63
Wetted Perim (ft)= 2.10
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 0.65
Top Width (ft)= 0.87
EGL (ft)= 0.96
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.50 -0.50
100.00 0.00
100.50 0.50
101.00 1.00
101.50 1.50
102.00 2.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 26 2013
<Name>
Circular
Diameter (ft)= 1.00
Invert Elev (ft)= 100.00
Slope (%)= 0.40
N-Value= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft)= 0.75
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.75
Q (cfs)= 2.055
Area (sqft)= 0.63
Velocity (ft/s)= 3.25
Wetted Perim (ft)= 2.10
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 0.62
Top Width (ft)= 0.87
EGL (ft)= 0.91
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.50 -0.50
100.00 0.00
100.50 0.50
101.00 1.00
101.50 1.50
102.00 2.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 2 2013
<Name>
Circular
Diameter (ft)= 1.00
Invert Elev (ft)= 100.00
Slope (%)= 0.22
N-Value= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft)= 0.75
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.75
Q (cfs)= 1.524
Area (sqft)= 0.63
Velocity (ft/s)= 2.41
Wetted Perim (ft)= 2.10
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 0.53
Top Width (ft)= 0.87
EGL (ft)= 0.84
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.50 -0.50
100.00 0.00
100.50 0.50
101.00 1.00
101.50 1.50
102.00 2.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 26 2013
<Name>
Circular
Diameter (ft)= 0.83
Invert Elev (ft)= 100.00
Slope (%)= 0.40
N-Value= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft)= 0.63
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.63
Q (cfs)= 1.258
Area (sqft)= 0.44
Velocity (ft/s)= 2.87
Wetted Perim (ft)= 1.75
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 0.51
Top Width (ft)= 0.71
EGL (ft)= 0.75
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
99.75
100.00
100.25
100.50
100.75
101.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 2 2013
<Name>
Circular
Diameter (ft)= 0.83
Invert Elev (ft)= 100.00
Slope (%)= 0.28
N-Value= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft)= 0.63
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.63
Q (cfs)= 1.063
Area (sqft)= 0.44
Velocity (ft/s)= 2.41
Wetted Perim (ft)= 1.76
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)= 0.46
Top Width (ft)= 0.71
EGL (ft)= 0.72
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
99.75
100.00
100.25
100.50
100.75
101.00
Reach (ft)
Se
g
m
e
n
t
#
F
r
o
m
T
o
S
u
b
-
b
a
s
i
n
A
r
e
a
(
a
c
)
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Pe
a
k
i
n
g
Fa
c
t
o
r
Av
g
U
n
i
t
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
d
)
Pe
a
k
S
u
b
-
b
a
s
i
n
Fl
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
Cu
m
m
.
P
e
a
k
S
u
b
-
ba
s
i
n
F
l
o
w
(
g
p
m
)
Pi
p
e
Di
a
m
t
e
r
Sl
o
p
e
Capacity @ 75% Full (gpm)Velocity @75% Full (ft/s)
1
1
3
w-
1
10
.
4
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
4.
5
30
0
0
97
.
5
……
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
……
…
…
…
…
w-
2
7.
1
Ho
t
e
l
4.
5
30
0
0
66
.
6
……
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
……
…
…
…
…
w-
3
13
.
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
4.
5
30
0
0
13
0
.
3
29
4
.
4
8"
0.
0
0
4
3172.49
2
2
3
w-
4
15
.
2
Te
c
h
4.
5
96
0
45
.
6
45
.
6
8"
0.
0
0
4
3172.49
3
3
5
w-
5
22
.
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
4.
5
30
0
0
21
4
.
7
55
4
.
7
10
"
0.
0
0
4
5642.87
4
4
5
w-
6
19
.
4
Te
c
h
4.
5
96
0
58
.
2
58
.
2
8"
0.
0
0
4
3173.49
5
5
EN
D
w-
7
26
.
8
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
4.
5
10
0
0
83
.
8
……
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
……
…
…
…
…
w-
8
19
.
4
Li
g
h
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
.
4.
5
96
0
58
.
2
……
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
……
…
…
…
…
w-
9
2.
1
Li
g
h
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
.
4.
5
96
0
6.
3
76
1
.
1
12
"
0.
0
0
4
9223.25
SE
G
M
E
N
T
&
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
E
D
F
L
O
W
S
T
A
B
L
E
J:\Jobs.Active\North Park PER\#1. PER\A_000_APPENDIX.docx 2013-10-02
APPENDIX I
PRELIMINARY WATER DESIGN DATA
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS