Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Public Hearing_Part17
Page 1 of 48 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment NOTE: UPDATES TO THIS STAFF REPORT THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE ITS PRESENTATION TO THE ZONING COMMISSION ARE SHOWN IN RED. Public Hearing Dates: Zoning Commission, February 4, 2014 City Commission, February 24, 2014 Subject: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) to change the zoning of approximately 5.0 acres of R-3 (Residential Medium Density District); approximately10.6 acres of R-1 (Residential Single Household Low Density District) and approximately 0.39 acres of R-2 (Residential Two Household Medium Density District) to R-4 (Residential High Density District), Application Z13268 Location: The property is currently vacant and is generally described as south of Opportunity Way and east of what would be South 11th Avenue extended. (South of the University Stadium). Recommendation: Approval of the zone map amendment application with contingencies. Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, the public testimony, deliberations and vote of the Zoning Commission at the February 4, 2014 Zoning Commission meeting and the information presented by staff, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application Z13268 and move to approve the Zone Map Amendment with the identified contingencies. Report Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 (Updated February 14, 2014 for presentation to the City Commission) Staff Contacts: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager Doug Riley, Senior Planner Dustin Johnson, Development Review Engineer Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property owner/applicant has made application for a Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map to R-4, Residential High Density District for approximately 16 acres located immediately south of Opportunity Way and south of the Montana State University (MSU) Stadium. The site is presently vacant and has been in agricultural use. The Commission must consider all the data, information, public comment (written and at public hearings), deliberations and vote of the Zoning Commission at the February 4, 2014 Zoning Commission meeting to determine if this is a suitable location for R-4 zoning. This 210 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 2 of 48 ZMA application must be reviewed solely on whether it meets the criteria for a zone map amendment in Section 76-2-304, MCA as reviewed in this staff report. These criteria are: A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. G. Promotion of compatible Urban Growth. H. Character of the district. I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. J. Conserving the value of buildings. K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. While there is considerable discussion in the community about the applicant’s specific site plan application/project, the Zoning Commission and City Commission must review this application based on all potential land uses permitted in the R-4 zoning district, and not solely on any specific development proposal. A ZMA cannot be conditioned to the future construction of any specific use. At the discretion of the Community Development Director under the noticing provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), noticing to nearby property owners was extended to 400 feet of the boundary of the parent tract for this project as well as additional noticing via the newspaper and posting on site. The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on January 15, 2014 at the Sacajawea Middle School in order to inform the area residents of their project and to answer questions. A significant amount of written public comment has been received regarding the requested ZMA. The written public comment received as of the date of this report can be accessed at the following link: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/fol/57687/Row1.aspx and is also available at the City Community Development Department and City Clerk’s Office. Any comments received following the date of this staff report will be provided to review agencies prior to or at the public hearings. Public comments that have been received have generally focused on: impacts to the nearby residential neighborhoods, character/compatibility, traffic impacts, impacts to area property values, compliance with the growth policy, and impacts to the nearby schools (Morningstar and Sacajawea). For a detailed discussion on the property and its zoning history please see Appendix C. 211 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 3 of 48 Based on its evaluation of the application against the ZMA criteria, the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommends approval of the application. The Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered the application on February 4, 2014. Following the public hearing and detailed deliberations, the Zoning Commission action resulted in a split vote (2 nay and 2 aye) on the motion recommending the application for approval to the City Commission. Therefore, the Zoning Commission did not forward a favorable recommendation to the City Commission. A tie vote means the motion to recommend approval was not approved. No subsequent motion was made. 2-4-14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SUPPLEMENT The Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered the application on February 4, 2014. The audio/visual recording/minutes from this meeting can be accessed at the following link: http://www.avcaptureall.com/Sessions.aspx#session.8d387120-b383-454a-81dc- 8c6a4338146c Staff encourages the City Commission to review the full Zoning Commission meeting in order to hear all the public comment that was provided and the detailed deliberations of the Zoning Commission. Thirty-five people provided public comment in opposition to the application at the Zoning Commission meeting. There was no public comment in support of the application. Following is a general summary or categorization of public comment in relation to several of the criteria for a zone map amendment: (For the complete record of public comment, please see the audio/visual recording/minutes at the link provided above) A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Public comment asserted an inconsistency between the requested R-4 zoning district and the Bozeman Community Plan regarding: - The growth policy (Community Plan) requires compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. - This property is not in close proximity to campus and commercial centers. - The Community Plan requires preservation of existing neighborhoods. - The Community Plan requires that development be based on neighborhoods. C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. - Concerns for the safety of children near Morningstar School and nearby neighborhoods. - Concerns regarding increased crime being introduced into the neighborhood. F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. - Concerns for traffic safety near Morningstar School. 212 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 4 of 48 - Traffic impacts to the existing residential neighborhoods. - Concerns about cut through traffic in Figgins Subdivision. - Comments that the applicant’s traffic study is flawed. G. Promotion of compatible Urban Growth. - The proposed zoning is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods to the east and south. - The existing zoning properly considers the character of the area and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. H. Character of the district. - This proposal creates too large of a change to the existing character of the area/district. - The character of the district is single family residential. - The staff report does not look at the context of the neighborhoods closely enough. - There is a need for lower density housing for MSU works, faculty, etc. in this area that this property is better suited for. - Concerns for the precedent this would set for this area and the remainder of the vacant property. - High density housing should be located west of S. 11th Avenue in the REMU District. - There are many other sites better suited for this type of development and density. - The existing zoning properly considers the character of the area. - The existing zoning created expectations for the residents who purchased homes in this area. J. Conserving the value of buildings. - Surrounding property values will be negatively impacted by this proposal. - A home currently for sale on Arnold Street has already been negatively impacted by this application. The Zoning Commission discussed public comment and the criteria for a zone map amendment. Following is a general summary or categorization of the Zoning Commission’s discussion points and deliberations in relation to several of the key criteria for a zone map amendment: (For the complete record of the Zoning Commission’s deliberations, please see the audio/visual recording/minutes at the following link: http://www.avcaptureall.com/Sessions.aspx#session.8d387120-b383-454a-81dc- 8c6a4338146c and then click on the 9:19:31 point of the meeting in the minutes). 213 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 5 of 48 A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. - There is a need for density and R-4 zoning in the City. - The adjacent REMU District will also have commercial uses in close proximity to this property. - There is a need for R-4 and other high density residential near campus in order to reduce the impacts of having people drive across the City to reach campus. - This application needs to be looked at in relation to broader City issues. - The City’s development standards help assure compliance with the Community Plan. - The Community Plan’s desire for infill and density need to be weighed against the need for compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. - The connection of traffic and traffic flows near the University are important. - R-4 zoning needs to be in locations that help to keep vehicle traffic reduced. G. Promotion of compatible Urban Growth. - The promotion of compatible urban growth is a key criteria and the public comments indicate that this proposal may not be compatible. - Support for higher density west of S. 11th in order to promote compatibility with the existing neighborhoods. - Transition of zoning and the remaining R-1 and R-2 would still provide a transition to the existing neighborhoods. H. Character of the district. - The character of the district is a key criteria due to the proximity of the existing single household neighborhoods. - Predictability based on zoning is important. - Approving R-4 zoning would set a new precedent for this area. - The existing zoning seems reasonable considering the REMU zoning on the west side of S. 11th. - Appropriate transitions of zoning are still provided. - This property has remained vacant and that creates some uncertainty as to what would actually be built and the fact that zoning is not stagnant. - The R-1 portion of this property does not seem appropriate in relation to the existing R-2 and R-3 and due to its proximity to campus. - It is important to have a “stepping” of zoning if you can. - Perhaps the REMU property should fully develop first. J. Conserving the value of buildings. - Impacts to area property values are an issue/concern. 214 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 6 of 48 Based on some of the comments and questions that were raised at the Zoning Commission meeting, staff would like to address or clarify the following: - Proximity to commercial and REMU – The Zoning Commission discussed whether, or to what extent, that there would be commercial development within the REMU District west of the subject property. The REMU District allows and encourages a mix of uses, including commercial, but does not mandate a minimum amount of commercial development. Non-residential development is, however, limited to not more than 30% of the total gross footage of all uses within the master planned area. The South University master site plan, while calling for a mix of uses, depicts the majority of uses along S. 11th Avenue as a commercial/residential mix as shown in the following map: For the initial phase of the Stadium View project within the REMU District, two buildings facing S. 11th have been designed to accommodate approximately 5,648 square feet of commercial use or tenant space on the ground floor. This space is located beginning approximately 500 feet away from the northwest corner of the Campus Crest property. 215 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 7 of 48 The distance from this property to campus and other commercial destinations was also discussed at the Zoning Commission meeting. The following distances, measured from the northwest corner of the subject property utilizing the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS), are provided for clarification/informational purposes: Distance to: (traveling north along S. 11th) Campus commuter parking (West Stadium Lot) on the southeast corner of S. 11th and Kagy Boulevard = 1,052 feet (.2 mile) Town and Country Grocery = 2,500 feet (.47 mile) Intersection of Garfield/Centennial Mall and S. 11th Avenue = 4,200 feet (.79 mile) For comparative purposes, the distance along Main Street between Willson (i.e. Teds Bar and Grill) and Wallace (Heebs Grocery) is 2,620 feet (.5 mile). - Zoning Changes – There was considerable public comment at the Zoning Commission meeting regarding the predictability or permanency of zoning when people purchased their homes. Of course, this application demonstrates the statutorily authorized procedure, and the criteria, for changing the zoning designation on a property. A property owner can submit an application to amend their zoning at any time. Following is information from the City’s database regarding the frequency of said zoning amendment applications. From 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2013 - The City processed 29 amendments to the text of the zoning standards. This number does not include the total replacement and re-adoption of zoning by Ordinance 1604 which established the Unified Development Ordinance and was initiated in 2002 but adopted in 2003. From 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2013 - The City considered 125 amendments to the zoning map. This number does not include the total replacement and re-adoption of the Zoning Map including revisions to reflect changes to district naming and changes to districts authorized by Ordinance 1604 which established the Unified Development Ordinance and was initiated in 2002. From 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2013 - The City considered 15 amendments to the zoning map in association with annexations. From 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2013 - The City considered 19 amendments to the zoning map changing existing zoning designations to a different zoning designation. - Traffic Study - There was considerable public comment and discussion by the Zoning Commission regarding the findings of the traffic study. While there is not a specific requirement for the submittal of a traffic study as part of a ZMA application, the applicant submitted one, specific to their proposed site development, and it was included 216 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 8 of 48 in the materials as it represents an analysis of a comparable intensity for possible uses on the subject property under the proposed R-4 zoning. It is staff’s understanding that the applicant’s professional Traffic Engineer will be in attendance at the City Commission meeting to explain the methodology and findings of the study. The City Engineering Department has had an opportunity to review the traffic study provided for the site plan development. Below is an attempt to summarize the findings of the study. The four primary streets that would be impacted by this development are W. Kagy Boulevard, South 3rd Avenue, S. 11th Avenue, and Arnold Street. W. Kagy is designated as a principal arterial, S. 11th and S. 3rd are designated collectors, and Arnold is designated as a local street. The table below indicates how many daily trips each street currently handles each day according to the traffic study. Street Vehicles/Day Designations Lanes W. Kagy 16,100 Principal Arterial 2 S. 11th 1,000 Collector 2 S. 3rd 11,100 Collector 2 Arnold 1,100 Local 2 Area traffic counts before Development According to the 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan a typical two lane road historically can manage up to 12,000 vehicles per day, and a three lane road can manage up to 18,000. The Transportation Plan states that streets with ideal management conditions can achieve slightly greater capacity. Under these conditions a two lane road can manage up to 15,000 vehicles per day, and a three lane road can manage up to 22,500 vehicles per day. These ideal management conditions could include limited accesses, efficient signal/intersection control, and ideal atmospheric conditions. As currently constructed W. Kagy is beyond the historic capacity for a street with two lanes. The Montana Department of Transportation is scheduled to begin design for the reconstruction of W. Kagy in 2015. The soonest the street could be reconstructed is the summer of 2016. The design would incorporate, at a minimum, a third (turning) lane. Kagy Blvd is a designated principal arterial. As depicted on Figure 9-16 of the transportation plan a principal arterial may have up to five lanes. As currently constructed S. 3rd is nearing the historic capacity for a street with two lanes. At this time there are no plans to improve S. 3rd beyond its current lane configuration. The table below indicates the future daily trips projected after the proposed development has been completed. 217 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 9 of 48 Street Vehicles/Day Designations Lanes W. Kagy 16,800 Principal Arterial 2 S. 11th 2,550 Collector 3 S. 3rd 11,700 Collector 2 Arnold 950 Local 2 Area traffic counts after Development As expected the projected overall traffic volume of the streets will increase with this type of R-4 development. The daily trips on W. Kagy increase by 700, the daily trips on S. 11th increase by 1,550, and the daily trips for S. 3rd increase by 600. One interesting projection by the traffic study states that the daily traffic count for Arnold Street is reduced by 150 daily trips. The reason behind this reduction is that some of the traffic currently using Arnold to access Morning Star or area residences will now utilize the newly constructed section of Arnold to access S. 11th and W. Kagy. As is typical of street networks the capacity of the network isn’t dictated by the streets themselves, but rather the intersections and individual turning movements. The traffic study has broken down each intersection and analyzed each individual turning movement for delays for morning and evening peak travel times. The study then took that data and projected the future traffic impact onto the existing system to analyze future delays. For this summary we will look at the primary impacts to the intersections of Kagy/S. 11th, Kagy/S. 7th, and Kagy/S. 3rd and Kagy/Arnold for the evening peak travel times. The turning movements listed in the table below only include the most severe delay times for the intersections addressed in the traffic study. Each turning movement delay time can be translated into a level of service (LOS) letter grade ranging from A to F, A being the shortest amount of delay. Each turning movement LOS is accounted for in the overall LOS of the intersection. An intersection can have a turning movement at an unacceptable LOS but have an acceptable LOS for the intersection as a whole. Intersection Direction of travel Turning movement Delay (sec) LOS Kagy/S. 11th South Left 32.2 C Kagy/S. 11th West Through 33.1 C Kagy/S. 7th South Left 35.9 E Kagy/S. 3rd North Through 24.6 C Kagy/S. 3rd South Through 34.0 C Kagy/S. 3rd East Through 31.9 C Kagy/S. 3rd West Through 25.4 C S. 3rd/Arnold East All 18.4 C Delay times for selected existing intersections 218 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 10 of 48 Of all the turning movements for each of the intersections addressed in the traffic study the lowest level of service will be at the intersection of Kagy and S. 7th for the vehicles traveling south on 7th attempting to take a left onto Kagy. The LOS for this turning movement is at an E, and the intersection as a whole is at an unacceptable LOS. This intersection has been brought up by previous applications such as the Town & Country Grocery Store and the Greek Way Apartments. Those applications were granted variances for the deficient LOS. In conversations with MDT it appears, at this time, this intersection will continue to operate at this LOS until Kagy is improved. Based on changes to the municipal code City staff has been able to administratively approve applications in the area despite the LOS at this intersection. The most recent application approved in this manner was the South University District. The table below takes the same turning movements and delays of the existing intersections and adds the future traffic impacts of the proposed development. Included with the table are the updated delays, LOS, and the additional delay from existing to proposed. Intersection Direction of travel Turning movement Delay (sec) Additional Delay (sec) LOS Kagy/S. 11th South Left 37.4 D 5.2 Kagy/S. 11th West Through 34.5 C 1.4 Kagy/S. 7th South Left 37.2 E 1.3 Kagy/S. 3rd North Through 24.4 C -0.2 Kagy/S. 3rd South Through 34.3 C 0.3 Kagy/S. 3rd East Through 33.3 C 1.4 Kagy/S. 3rd West Through 25.8 C 0.4 S. 3rd/Arnold East All 19.6 C 1.2 Delay times for selected intersections after development (w/ additional delay) The largest additional delay experienced is at the intersection of Kagy and S. 11th for the vehicles traveling south attempting to turn left on Kagy. The delay goes from 32.2 seconds to 37.4 seconds, an additional 5.2 seconds. This degrades the LOS for this turning movement from a C to a D, but the overall LOS for the intersection remains at a C during peak evening hour. The analysis demonstrates that the surrounding street network will be able to accommodate the additional traffic without degrading below an acceptable level of service. Note: The applicant submitted an addendum to their traffic study on February 14, 2014 to provide a comparative analysis of the proposed Campus Crest development scenario versus development of the subject property under the existing zoning. This addendum is attached to the back of the applicant’s previously submitted traffic study. 219 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 11 of 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 2-4-14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SUPPLEMENT ............................................... 3 UNRESOLVED ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 11 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................. 12 SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL .............................. 14 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 15 SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 15 Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria: ...................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............. 25 APPENDIX B – 2013 LAND USE INVENTORY ................................................................ 42 APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 46 APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 47 APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ............................ 48 UNRESOLVED ISSUES There are no unresolved issues with this ZMA application that prohibit its review. ALTERNATIVES 1) Approval of the zone map amendment. 2) Denial of the zone map amendment. 3) Deny the zone map amendment request and consider a zoning designation different than what has been requested by the applicant and continue the item for a minimum of one week to allow the applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the possible action (as required under 38.37.030.D.2, BMC). 220 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 12 of 48 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Adjacent Zoning and Current Land Uses – 2012 Aerial Photo North: Zoned: BP (Business Park District) - Use: Commercial/Office South: Zoned: R-1 (Residential Single Household Low Density District) - Use: Vacant East: Zoned: R-2 (Residential Two Household Medium Density District) - Use: Vacant West: Zoned: R-1 and REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use District) - Use: Vacant Note: Existing residentially developed R-1 and R-2 properties, including the Morningstar Elementary School, while not directly adjacent to the subject property, are in proximity to the subject property as depicted on the above map. N 221 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 13 of 48 GROWTH POLICY – FUTURE LAND USE MAP - FIGURE 3-1 N Morningstar Elem. 222 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 14 of 48 TRAILS/BIKE/ROAD NETWORK MAP SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the proposed amendment if the City Commission approves the application. Recommended Contingencies of Approval: 1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map shall be identified as the “Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment”. 2. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled “Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment”, on a 24” by 36” mylar, 8 ½” by 11”, or 8 ½” by 14” paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Works, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property and zoning districts, and total acreage of the property. 3. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the 223 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 15 of 48 applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor and map of the area to be rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Having considered the criteria established for a ZMA against the proposed zoning, reviewing Staff recommends approval with contingencies to enable completion of the required implementing ordinance. Should the City Commission move to amend the zoning, an ordinance adopting the ZMA must be approved and become effective. The Development Review Committee (DRC) held meetings on December 4, 11, and 18, 2013 to consider the ZMA. The DRC found the application was sufficient for review and recommended approval with contingencies. The Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on February 4, 2014 to make a recommendation to the City Commission. The City Commission is scheduled to consider the application on February 24, 2014. SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria: Staff has evaluated the proposed amendment with respect to the criteria as summarized below and provides the following findings. The applicant’s written response to the criteria is included in their application materials. A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. Staff finds the proposed zoning substantially complies and is therefore in accordance with the Bozeman Community Plan. As an initial consideration, the subject property is designated as “Residential” on Figure 3-1 (Future Land Use Map) of the Bozeman Community Plan as noted on page 5 in Section 1. The R-4, Residential High Density District is one of the implementing districts for the residential land use designation as shown in Table C-16 of the Community Plan (see Appendix A). The table of authorized land uses within the R-4 District is also provided in Appendix A and is highlighted in yellow. The “R-4” zoning designation requested is consistent with the residential land use designation of the Community Plan. Figure 3-1 (Future Land Use Map) is not, however, the only element of the Community Plan which must be considered. There are numerous goals, objectives, and other components which must also be evaluated. While not every element of the Community Plan will apply to every proposal, a broad evaluation of compliance is needed. A proposal may comply with Figure 3-1 but not with the other elements of the Community Plan. As such, to be in 224 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 16 of 48 substantial compliance with the Community Plan the requested zoning must substantially comply not only with Figure 3-1 but also with other Community Plan elements when the Community Plan is taken as a whole. Chapter 3 of the Community Plan addresses land uses: http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/e6/e6a049b8-fad5-4886-b7f5-3ebfbd2f4556.pdf . Beginning on page 3-3, there are seven principles laid out which provide a foundation for Bozeman’s land use policies and practices. These are: • Neighborhoods • Sense of Place • Natural Amenities • Centers • Integration of Action • Urban Density • Sustainability While all of these principles must be considered, one principle that is critical in the review of this application is that of urban density (see pg. 3-4 of the Community Plan). In that section of the Community Plan, the following principle is stated: Fundamental to the efficient and cost-effective provision of urban services, multi-modal transportation oriented development, and a compact development pattern is a concentration of persons and activities (emphasis added). Density of development must also be balanced against community character, parks and open spaces, and the housing choices of citizens. Quality site and architectural design will materially affect the success and acceptability of urban density and scale of development. In this regard, as stated in the “Residential” land use category description of the Community Plan, (see Appendix A): High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers.” (emphasis added). This high density description is particularly relevant to the requested zoning as the proposed high density (R-4) district is located less than ½ mile from the MSU campus. This is within walking/biking distance for future residents. MSU is a commercial center as it is the largest employer in the City and provides many civic and commercial functions. In addition, two neighborhood commercial centers (Town and Country Grocery on South 11th and South Towne Square at Kagy and South Third) are also within ½ mile -walking/biking distance from the subject property. This directly corresponds with Objective LU-2.1 of the Community Plan which states: 225 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 17 of 48 Objective LU-2.1: Locate high density community scale service centers on a one-mile radius, and neighborhood service centers on a one-half mile radius, to facilitate the efficient use of transportation and public services in providing employment, residential and other essential services. While this Objective focuses on locating community service centers, it is germane to the analysis of whether the requested rezoning substantially complies with the Community Plan as locating high density housing in proximity to commercial centers is emphasized in an effort to reduce reliance on automobiles to reach commercial centers. Other applicable goals and objectives from the Community Plan which must be analyzed include: Chapter 3 - Land Use Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimizes sprawl. Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or design. (emphasis added) These Land Use Goals and Objectives are both tied to the “urban density” and “sustainability” land use principles of the Community Plan attached to the end of this report. The subject property, and requested R-4 zoning, with its proximity to the MSU campus and urban services is compliant with these goals and objectives. Chapter 4 - Community Quality Objective C-1.3: Support compatible infill within the existing area of the City rather than developing land requiring expansion of the City’s area. Due to the location of the subject property, within the existing City limits and with its proximity to the MSU campus, this property can be considered infill development. All necessary City infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.), are available to the property and can be upgraded to serve the property at an R-4 density. As such, an R-4 zoning for this property complies with Goal LU-1 as this zoning for this location supports the location of dense residential development in close proximity to public and private services. Because the property is designated residential on the Future Land Use Map, an analysis of the Community Plan’s provisions regarding housing is necessary. Chapter 6 – Housing provides the following goals and objectives: Goal H-1: Promote an adequate supply of safe, quality housing that is diverse in type, density, cost and location with an emphasis on maintaining character and stability. 226 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 18 of 48 Objective 1.1: Encourage and support the creation of a broad range of housing types in proximity to services and transportation options. Objective 1.3: Promote the provision of a wide variety of housing types in a range of costs to meet the diverse residential needs of Bozeman residents. The R-4 zoning district, (highlighted in yellow in the Table of Residential Land Uses in Appendix A), permits the largest diversity of different housing types for the residential zoning districts in support of the above Goal and Objectives. The Community Plan states, “all residential housing should be arranged with consideration given to the existing character of adjacent development…” This item is discussed in more detail under criteria H “Character of the District” on p. 18 of this report. Considering the above, Staff finds the requested R-4 zoning designation substantially complies with and is therefore in accordance with the Community Plan. It should also be noted that the Uniform Development Code (UDC) contains development standards that are, among other things, established to implement the goals and objectives of the Community Plan. Standards and criteria established at the time of development will also ensure that future development substantially complies with the Community Plan. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. Yes, the requested zoning, in conjunction with applicable development requirements contained within the UDC, state law, and the municipal code generally, will secure safety from fire and other dangers. The regulatory provisions established for all of the City’s zoning designations under Chapter 38, Unified Development Code (UDC), BMC, in conjunction with provisions for adequate transportation facilities, properly designed water mains and fire service lines, and adequate emergency exits/escapes, will address safety concerns with any development of the property. All new structures and development on the subject property will be required to meet the minimum zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height limitations and lot sizes thus ensuring the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Per Article 1 of the UDC (see 38.01.050, BMC), the City has the authority and power to require more stringent standards than the minimum requirements if doing so is in the public interest. The site is not within a designated floodplain, has no steep slopes, and is well within the emergency response service area for the City. No future development of the site may proceed until adequate provision of services has been demonstrated through the site plan or subdivision review process. These processes require detailed examination of compliance with adopted standards and enable application of conditions of approval to ensure that any deficiencies have been corrected. The Fire Department, through the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, did not identify any concerns with the proposed ZMA. As such, the requested zoning and any future development will not be counter to this criteria. 227 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 19 of 48 C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Yes, the requested zoning, in conjunction with applicable development requirements, will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. The regulatory provisions established through the City’s municipal code under the UDC will adequately address the issues of public health, safety, and general welfare. Further development of the subject property also requires review and approval by the City’s Development Review Committee, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the City Engineer's Office and the City’s Director of Public Works. Any buildings constructed on the site will be subject to review pursuant to applicable building codes which will ensure they are constructed in a manner which reduces risk for fire, loss during earthquake, are structurally sound, and well fit for their purpose. The City’s UDC requires compliance with building codes (Section 38.34.100 BMC). Additional development issues related to municipal infrastructure (i.e., water and sanitary sewer) and public services (i.e., police and fire protection) will be addressed with subdivision and/or site plan review when demand can be more accurately calculated. Water and sewer infrastructure are adjacent and available to the site. Any development will be required to meet or exceed regulatory provisions established through the City’s municipal code under the UDC for transportation facilities. The City has established good neighbor outreach programs, standards for control of off-site impacts such as noise, and enforcement mechanisms. These will apply to any future development. The City’s Development Review Committee, (which includes review by the City’s various Departments), did not identify any concerns in regards to being able to adequately address the public health, public safety and general welfare as it relates to the proposed zoning change. D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Yes, the requested zoning, in conjunction with applicable development requirements, will facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. The proposed higher density zoning designation may facilitate the extensive improvements necessary to required infrastructure (transportation, water and sewer) needed to address these public requirements. Design details of future infrastructure will be addressed through the development (subdivision or site plan) review process. This includes construction of streets, water and sewer lines, parkland dedication requirements, and other public requirements as required under City Codes. Any undue concentration of persons on a site occurs when the population exceeds the ability of the site to safely meet the needs of the site users. In these regards, all infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.) must be developed or upgraded to City standards to serve the site 228 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 20 of 48 prior to any land development being approved for occupancy. This may include construction of South 11th with a connection to the west end of Arnold Street, installation of water and sewer service adequate to serve the development, water adequacy, and, depending on the nature of future development, the provision of dedicated park land or payment of cash-in- lieu. During the development review process an applicant must demonstrate that all these adequate services are in place to serve future uses. The subject property is located in close proximity to Montana State University, Morning Star Elementary and Sacajawea Middle School. Placing high density housing within walking distance or short commutes to schools generally promotes related service efficiencies. In regards to infrastructure, as it relates to the designation of any zoning designation on a property, Section 38.07.010.C, BMC, states: Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the city that the range of uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in that location. It is not a guarantee of approval for any given use prior to the completion of the appropriate review procedure and compliance with all of the applicable requirements and development standards of this chapter and other applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also not a guarantee of immediate infrastructure availability or a commitment on the part of the city to bear the cost of extending services. The City has prepared and adopted facility plans identifying the required improvements to water, sewer, and transportation systems necessary to serve the area south of Kagy Blvd. The City has signalized the intersection of Kagy Blvd and S. 11th Avenue in preparation for development south of Kagy Blvd. In addition, Kagy Boulevard is scheduled for improvements by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) in 2015 -16. The recent expansions of the water and sewer reclamation plants are adequate to serve the additional users if the zone map amendment is approved. The City has committed funds to the extension of S. 11th Avenue. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Yes, the requested zoning, in conjunction with applicable development requirements, will ensure the reasonable provision of adequate light and air. The regulatory standards set forth in the UDC for the requested R-4 zoning district provides the necessary provisions (i.e., yard setbacks, lot coverage, open space and building heights, etc.) to provide adequate light and air for any proposed development on the property. The building plans will also be subject to the International Building Code which has additional requirements for ventilation and lighting. 229 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 21 of 48 F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. The staff determines the proposed zoning has a neutral effect on motorized and non- motorized transportation systems. Additional traffic will occur any time vacant property is developed. Any development on the subject property will be required to conform to the City’s development standards for transportation which are geared towards providing both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between existing and future street networks. For this property, this would include construction (an extension) of South 11th Avenue, including bike lanes, as shown in the City’s adopted Transportation Plan, and connection of Arnold Street from its current terminus at Morning Star Elementary to South 11th at the southwest corner of the subject property. The portion of Arnold Street west of Westridge Drive currently experiences heavy congestion at peak times due to traffic accessing and leaving Morning Star Elementary. During these peak times, the traffic congestion is short in duration, and is above what is typical for a local standard street. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for their proposed development and it is included in the applicant’s materials. While this TIS is specific to a student housing project, and, as previously noted, this ZMA is not project specific, the TIS represents an analysis of similar intensity for any possible maximum use of the subject property under the proposed R-4 zoning. In addition, the TIS is also analyzed as part of the site specific (site plan) review. The connection of Arnold Street and South 11th Avenue would create a new access from Kagy into the adjoining neighborhood located east of the subject property. There is concern that increased cut-through traffic on Arnold would further degrade the level of service for a local street that already experiences short duration heavy traffic loads on a weekday basis due to the location of the Morningstar School at the end of this street. The applicant’s TIS states, “The calculations indicate that the travel time using the new route would be approximately 17 seconds longer for trips with origins and destinations between Arnold Street and S. 3rd Avenue and origins and destinations served by Kagy Boulevard west of S. 11th Avenue.” (Essentially, the TIS is indicating that people traveling north on S. 3rd Avenue would still utilize S. 3rd Avenue through the Kagy Boulevard intersection to reach destinations to the north and west instead of this new Arnold Street connection as it will remain a quicker route). The traffic patterns of the existing and proposed street network are complex due to the heavy pedestrian and bike traffic. It is unclear how the impacts from other traffic sources not accounted for in this traffic study could affect the local traffic system. Although the Morning Star School traffic and the projected vehicle trips associated with the Stadium View development were not addressed in this TIS, these traffic volumes will be analyzed as part of Trip Exchange Study being conducted by the Western Transportation Institute (WTI). The applicant’s TIS concludes that the development of the property as proposed would not 230 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 22 of 48 substantially impact the safety and efficiency of any of the area streets or intersections. Staff finds that the TIS is of sound engineering methods and meets the minimum requirements established by Section 38.41.060.A.12. of the BMC. R-4 high density residential zoning in this location will support higher volumes of non- motorized transportation (i.e. walk/bike) to reach the MSU campus and nearby neighborhood services (grocery, cafes, etc.). This furthers one of the primary “Transportation” Objectives in relation to land use in the City’s Community Plan which states: Objective T-2.1: For the purposes of transportation and land use planning and development, non-motorized travel options and networks shall be of equal importance and consideration as motorized travel options. This balance shall ensure that a variety of travel opportunities are available which do not require the use of automobiles for local trips. The extension/connection of the streets and pedestrian systems with adjacent City streets will be required as part of future development on the subject property. The purpose of doing so will be to provide connectivity, traffic dispersal and alternate routes for emergency services. The standards for interconnection are established in Article 38.24 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The extension/connection of additional streets to serve the remainder of the vacant property in this area is expected upon specific development applications involving the surrounding property. A map of the planned extensions of major routes and the existing trail network is provided in Section 1 – Map Series. Interconnection with local streets will be reviewed and established during the development review process. As described in Criterion A, above, the proposed site is well situated for higher density housing with close proximity to a variety of commercial services. This facilitates use of non- motorized vehicles and walking rather than requiring reliance upon a motor vehicle for all trips. The development of R-4 higher density residential in this location, with its proximity to the MSU campus, may reasonably be expected to have a positive effect on the City’s overall transportation network by reducing vehicle trips from other, more distant, housing locations to campus. G. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth. Yes, the requested zoning, in conjunction with development requirements for any use under the proposed zoning, will promote compatible urban growth. As discussed above, the proposed zoning establishes uses that substantially comply with the Community Plan including the future land use map. As discussed in the Community Plan analysis, this property, with its proximity to the MSU campus, meets many of the Community Plan land use goals and objectives supporting higher density urban development. The development of the site will also have to meet City standards for infrastructure and municipal services. 231 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 23 of 48 This item is also closely tied to the next criteria “Character of the district” in regards to compatibility with nearby land uses. As analyzed under that section, it is determined that development of this property under the proposed R-4 zoning, in compliance with the City’s development standards (e.g. setbacks, buffering, landscaping), will allow compatible urban growth. Section 38.08.010.A BMC (Residential Zoning Districts – Intent and Purpose Section) also states, “there is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible with each other when the standards of this chapter are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied.” H. Character of the district. The staff determines the proposed zoning has a neutral effect on the character of the existing area. This property is within a transitional area between the commercial/industrial BP (Business Park) zoning to the north (across Opportunity Way), the MSU Campus, the future Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) development to the northwest and the existing single household areas to the east and south of this property. Considering that there is vacant land zoned R-1 and R-2 to the east and south immediately adjacent to this property, the proposed zoning will have a neutral effect on the character of this transitional area. Given the adjacent zoning, a transition of residential zoning will remain between the subject property and the existing residential neighborhoods to the south and east. In addition, a buffer of park land and trail corridor exists to the east of the site between the property and the R-2 and R-1 zoning to the east and south. This park and trail corridor creates a physical separation between the existing developed Figgins neighborhood to the east and development on the vacant land west of the trail and park corridor further defining the transition from existing zoning to the west to the R-1 zoning to the east. Moreover, the street network required to be constructed to serve this property at the time of development will require streets to be constructed on all four sides of the R-4 property. This will preclude an immediate adjacency of differing zoning districts/land uses. The City has many existing locations where R-4 zoning adjoins other lower density residential zoning districts, especially where streets are provided between the differing zoning districts. Finally, it is important to note that the northern portion of the subject property is currently zoned R3. This current zoning supports the finding that the area is properly considered a transitional area. As such, the proposed zoning of the currently zoned R3 property to R4 and the addition of 10.6 acres of higher density residential development will continue to provide a transition from the commercial, business park, and mixed use zoning and uses to the north and west to the lower density residential zoning and uses to the east and south. The addition of 10.6 acres of property to a higher density residential zoning will not unduly affect the transitional character of the area. 232 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 24 of 48 I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. The staff determines the proposed zoning has a neutral effect on the peculiar suitability of this property for the particular uses included in R-4 zoning. For purposes of the analysis of the proposed zoning under this criteria staff incorporates the analysis under criteria A, F, and G. In addition, the property is suitable for use for higher density housing, including housing to be made available to students from MSU, due to its proximity to this commercial center in order to promote the land use principles of the Community Plan as previously addressed in this report. J. Conserving the value of buildings. The staff determines the proposed zoning has a neutral effect in conserving the value of buildings in the area. The property proposed for rezoning is currently vacant. The immediately adjacent property to the east, west, and south is currently vacant as well. There is existing commercial development to the north. There are existing residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the property. The closest existing residence to the east and south is approximately 300 feet from the subject property. The City’s development regulations and the transitioning of land uses still afforded by the presence of the existing R- 1 and R-2 zoning to these areas will alleviate any impacts to the value of existing buildings in the area. In addition to the analysis provided herein, staff incorporates the findings provided in Criterion H, above. K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Yes, the requested zoning, in conjunction with development requirements for any use under the proposed zoning, will encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city. The requested R4 zoning designation is supportive of the overall intent of the Community Plan in regards to encouraging infill development and the establishment of urban density. In addition, the proposed zoning is not significantly different in types and intensity of uses and density from the REMU zoning to the west and the Business Park zoning to the north when considering the adjacent zoning and current adjacent land uses. A developed commercial property exists immediately to the north and, as has been stated, uses of a commercial nature are located further to the north. To the west lies property designed as REMU – a zoning designation that contemplates both residential and commercial type uses. Thus, the proposed zoning is compatible with zoning and existing land uses to the west and north. Staff also finds the proposed zoning to be compatible with existing zoning to the east and south as stated in the analysis of other criteria. We recognize, however, the compatibility with existing zoning and land uses to the east and south is not as clear as the compatibility with the same to the west and north. While the uses authorized in R4 differ to some extent 233 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 25 of 48 from the uses authorized in the other residential zoning districts, many uses are the same. See table of authorized uses in Appendix A comparing uses in each of the residential zoning districts. In addition, while the density authorized in R4 is greater than the density provided under the existing zoning for the property as well as the authorized zoning density and current density of properties lying to the east and south, the development standards of the UDC will ensure development on this property under any residential zoning consider adjacent land uses. Finally, given the transitional nature of the area, the proposed zoning will encourage appropriate use of land throughout the City by providing additional land near MSU and existing commercial centers for higher density residential development. APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The property is designated as Residential in the Community Plan. The Community Plan at pg. 3-10 states: This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area. Table C-16 of the Community Plan (Zoning Correlation with Land Use Categories) (see Community Plan, Appendix C at pg. C-17) indicates that R-4 zoning is one of the zoning districts envisioned for the “Residential” Growth Policy Designation. 234 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 26 of 48 Zoning Designation and Land Uses: Following is Article 8 – Residential Zoning Districts – from the Bozeman Municipal Code which details the different land uses and development standards for the various residential zoning districts. In order to assist in evaluating the differences, the existing R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts for the subject property are highlighted in green and the proposed R-4 zoning district is highlighted in yellow. Sec. 38.08.010. Intent and purpose. A. The intent and purpose of the residential zoning districts is to establish areas within the city that are primarily residential in character and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas. The purpose in having more than one residential district is to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types and arrangements within the community while providing a basic level of predictability. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible with each other when the standards of this chapter are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. All development is subject to section 38.01.050. Residential density is correlated with many community goals and objectives that are contained in the city's adopted growth 235 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 27 of 48 policy, as well as many standards and purposes of this chapter. Section 38.08.090 sets standards for minimum densities in residential districts which will advance these goals, objectives, and purposes. 1. The intent and purpose of the R-S residential suburban district is to allow open space, resource protection and primarily single-household development in circumstances where environmental constraints limit the desirable density. All new subdivision and site plan developments in this district shall be subject to the provisions of article 20 of this chapter, pertaining to planned unit development, and shall be developed in compliance with the adopted city growth policy. 2. The intent of the R-1 residential single-household low density district is to provide for primarily single-household residential development and related uses within the city at urban densities, and to provide for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's residents while respecting the residential character and quality of the area. 3. The intent of the R-2 residential two-household medium density district is to provide for one- and two-household residential development at urban densities within the city in areas that present few or no development constraints, and for community facilities to serve such development while respecting the residential quality and nature of the area. 4. The intent of the R-3 residential medium density district is to provide for the development of one- to five-household residential structures near service facilities within the city. It should provide for a variety of housing types to serve the varied needs of households of different size, age and character, while reducing the adverse effect of nonresidential uses. 5. The intent of the R-4 residential high density district is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total building area. 6. The intent of the R-O residential-office district is to provide for and encourage the development of multihousehold and apartment development 236 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 28 of 48 and compatible professional offices and businesses that would blend well with adjacent land uses. The primary use of a lot, as measured by building area, permitted in the R-O district is determined by the underlying growth policy land use designation. Where the district lies over a residential growth policy designation the primary use shall be non-office uses; where the district lies over a nonresidential designation the primary use shall be office and other nonresidential uses. Primary use shall be measured by percentage of building floor area. 7. The intent of the RMH residential manufactured home community district is to provide for manufactured home community development and directly related complementary uses within the city at a density and character compatible with adjacent development. The district is intended to be residential in character and consistent with the standards for other forms of residential development permitted by this chapter. Sec. 38.08.020. Authorized uses. A. Uses in the various residential districts are depicted in Table 38.08.020 in subsection C of this section. Principal uses are indicated with a "P," conditional uses are indicated with a "C," accessory uses are indicated with an "A" and uses which are not permitted with the district are indicated by a "-." B. Additional uses for telecommunication uses are contained in article 29 of this chapter. C. The uses listed are deliberately broad and some are given special definitions in article 42 of this chapter. The intent of this method is to provide general guidance for uses while allowing the unique needs and circumstances of each proposal to be specifically addressed through the review process. Some uses are the subject of special regulations contained in article 22 of this chapter. 237 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 29 of 48 Table 38.08.020 Table of Residential Uses Authorized Uses R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R- O RMH Accessory dwelling units8, 9 C C P P P P — Agricultural uses on 2.5 acres or more2 P — — — — — — Agricultural uses on less than 2.5 acres2 C — — — — — — Apartments/apartment building, as defined in article 42 of this chapter — — — — P P — Bed and breakfast C C C C P P — Commercial stable C — — — — — — Community centers C C C C C P C Community residential facilities with eight or fewer residents P P P P P P P Community residential facilities serving nine or more residents — — — C P P — Cooperative housing C C C P P P C Day care centers C C C P P P C Essential services (Type I) P P P P P P P Essential services (Type II) C — — — — — C Extended stay lodgings C C C P P P — Family day care home P P P P P P P 238 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 30 of 48 Table 38.08.020 Table of Residential Uses Authorized Uses R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R- O RMH Fences A A A A A A A Fraternity and sorority houses — — — C P P — Golf courses C C C — — — C Greenhouses A A A A A A — Group day care home P P P P P P P Group living P P P P P P P Guesthouses A A A A A A — Home-based businesses5 A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C Lodginghouses — — — C P P — Offices — — — — C3 P — Other buildings and structures typically accessory to authorized uses A A A A A A A Private garages A A A A A A A Private or jointly owned recreational facilities A A A A A A A Private stormwater control facilities A A A A A A A Private vehicle and boat storage A A A A A A A/C4 Public and private parks P P P P P P P 239 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 31 of 48 Table 38.08.020 Table of Residential Uses Authorized Uses R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R- O RMH Manufactured homes on permanent foundations1 P P P P P P P Manufactured home communities — — — — — — P Medical offices, clinics, and centers — — — — C P — Recreational vehicle parks C — — — — — P Signs, subject to article 28 of this chapter A A A A A A A Single-household dwelling P P P P P P P Temporary buildings and yards incidental to construction work A A A A A A A Temporary sales and office buildings A A A A A A A Three- or four-household dwelling — — — P P P — Two-household dwelling — — P P P P — Townhouses (two attached units) P7 P7 P P P P P7 Townhouses (five attached units or less) — — — P6 P P — Townhouses (more than five attached units) — — — — P P — 240 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 32 of 48 Table 38.08.020 Table of Residential Uses Authorized Uses R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R- O RMH Tool sheds for storage of domestic supplies A A A A A A A Uses approved as part of a PUD per article 20 of this chapter C C C C C C C Veterinary uses C — — — — — — Notes: 1Manufactured homes are subject to the standards of section 38.22.130. 2Agricultural uses include barns and animal shelters, and the keeping of animals and fowl, together with their dependent young, as hereinafter set forth per 2.5 acres: one horse or one cow; two sheep or two goats; ten rabbits; 36 fowl (chickens, pheasants, pigeons, etc.) or six larger fowl (ducks, geese, turkeys, etc.). For larger parcels the review authority may determine that a larger number of livestock is consistent with the requirements of this section. 3Only when in conjunction with dwellings. 4Storage for more than three recreational vehicles or boats. 5Home-based businesses are subject to the terms and thresholds of section 38.22.110. 6In the R-3 district, townhouse groups shall not exceed 120 feet in total width 7In the R-S, R-1, and RMH district townhomes are only allowed when utilized to satisfy the requirements of chapter 10, article 8, Affordable Housing. May only be utilized in developments subject to chapter 10, article 8. 8Not permitted on reduced size lots for work force housing as described in chapter 10, article 8. 241 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 33 of 48 9Accessory dwelling units in the RS and R1 districts shall be permitted to be placed above garages only in subdivisions receiving preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1997. Sec. 38.08.030. Lot coverage and floor area. A. Maximum lot coverage by principal and accessory buildings shall be: 1. For newly created lots in the R-S district, determined through the PUD review procedures set forth in article 20 of this chapter, in compliance with the adopted city growth policy. a. For existing lots in the R-S district, not more than 25 percent of the lot area shall be covered by principal and accessory buildings. 2. Not more than 40 percent of the lot area in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and RMH districts for all uses except townhouses. 3. Not more than 50 percent of the lot area in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and RMH districts for townhouses. 4. Not more than 50 percent in the R-4 district. 5. Not more than 50 percent for residential uses or 60 percent for nonresidential or mixed uses in the R-O district. 6. In all residential zoning districts for those lots used to satisfy the requirements of chapter 10, article 8, not more than 60 percent of the lot area shall be covered by principal and accessory buildings. When a larger lot has a portion of its total dwellings subject to the requirements of chapter 10, article 8, either directly or inherited from a previous subdivision, the portion used for those dwellings may have up to 60 percent of the lot area covered by principal and accessory buildings. B. Minimum floor area requirements for each dwelling in all districts shall be that area required by the city's adopted International Building Code. C. The total floor area of the dwelling built on a lot which was subject to the provisions of Ordinance 1604 (Exhibit A) (Code 1982, § 18.42.180), (excluding 242 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 34 of 48 area used for a garage) shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 1:3.3. For example, if the lot is 5,000 square feet the square footage of the house can not exceed 1,515, or a ratio of one square foot of floor area for each 3.3 square feet of lot area. Sec. 38.08.040. Lot area and width. A. All lots shall have a minimum area as set forth in Table 38.08.040-1 below and are cumulative. These minimums assume a lack of development constraints. Each lot must have a usable lot area of at least 50 percent of the total minimum lot area: Table 38.08.040-1 Lot Area Table Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet1 R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-O RMH Single- household dwelling See subsectio n C of this section 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 Single- household dwelling (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 2,7008 2,700 8 2,700 8 2,700 8 2,700 8 2,700 8 2,700 8 Two- household dwelling - - 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 - Two- household dwelling (only for - - 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 243 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 35 of 48 dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 Lot area per dwelling in three- or four- household dwelling configuration s - - - 3,000 3,000 3,000 - Lot area per dwelling in three- or four- household dwelling configuration s (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 - - - 2,500 2,500 2,500 - Townhouses - - 3,000 6 3,000 2 3,000 2 3,000 2 - Townhouses (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 244 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 36 of 48 article 8)7 Apartments - first dwelling - - - - 5,000 5,000 - Apartments - each dwelling after the first - - - - 1,200 1,200 - Apartments - each dwelling after the first (only for dwellings to satisfy minimum requirements of chapter 10, article 8)7 - - - - 900 900 - Additional area required for an accessory dwelling unit3 1,0004 1,000 1,000 5 1,000 5 1,000 5 1,000 5 - All other uses 5,0001 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 Notes: 1In order to comply with the standards contained in this chapter, lot area in excess of the required minimum may be needed; for example for corner lots, parking, landscaping or large residential structures, and may be necessary for property adjacent to watercourses, ridgelines, or other environmental features in order to provide an appropriate buildable area on the lot. 245 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 37 of 48 2For townhouse clusters the minimum average lot area per dwelling in an individual structure shall be 3,000 square feet. 3As defined in article 42 of this chapter and subject to the requirements of article 22 of this chapter. 4Extra lot size requirement does not apply when R-S lots are larger than 6,000 square feet. 5Second dwellings in accessory buildings are subject to all restrictions in this chapter relating to accessory buildings. Lot area and width shall be provided as if the dwelling were attached to the principal use. Dwellings to be developed under this option are subject to section 38.22.030. 6Per townhouse lot. 7May only be utilized in developments subject to chapter 10, article 8. 8A larger lot size may be required to comply with the requirements of section 10.08.060, Table 10.08.060, Mix and Price of Dwelling Units B. All lots shall have a minimum width as set forth in Table 38.08.040-2. These minimums assume a lack of development constraints. Table 38.08.040-2 Lot Width Table Minimum Lot Width in Feet R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-O RMH Single- household dwelling See subsectio n C of this section 50/40 2 50/40 2 50/402 50/402 50/40 2 50/40 2 Single- household dwelling (only for See subsectio n C of this 30 30 30 30 30 30 246 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 38 of 48 dwellings to satisfy requirements of chapter 10, article 8) section Two household dwelling - - 60/50 2 60/502 50/502 50/50 2 - Accessory dwelling unit1 50 50/40 2 60/50 2 60/502 60/502 60/50 2 - Dwellings in three- or four- household dwelling configuratio ns - - - 60 60 60 - Townhouses 30 30 30 Width of interio r units Width of interio r units Width of interi or units - All other uses See subsectio n C of this section 50 50 50 50 50 50 Notes: 1 Second dwellings in accessory buildings are subject to all restrictions in this chapter relating to accessory buildings. Lot area and width shall be provided as if the dwelling were attached to the principal use. Dwellings to be developed under this option are subject to 38.22.030. 247 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 39 of 48 2 When the lot is adjacent to an alley and vehicle access is taken only from that alley. C. Lot area and width for R-S residential suburban lots. 1. Lot area and width for newly created lots in R-S districts shall be determined through the PUD review procedures set forth in article 20 of this chapter and in compliance with the adopted city growth policy. Unless otherwise approved through the planned unit development process, the average lot size shall be one acre. 2. Existing lots in the R-S district not utilizing a community water and/or sewer system shall be considered nonconforming lots if less than one acre in area and/or 100 feet in width and subject to article 35 of this chapter. Existing lots in the R-S district utilizing a community water and/or sewer system shall be considered nonconforming lots if less than one-half acre in area and/or 100 feet in width and subject to article 32 of this chapter. D. Lot area and width may be reduced to allow a density bonus through the PUD process. Amount of a bonus, methodology for calculating the bonus, and standards for allowing a bonus are described in section 38.20.090.E.2.b(6). Sec. 38.08.050. Yards. A. Minimum yards required for the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-O and RMH districts are: 1. Front yard: a. Adjacent to arterial streets as designated in the city growth policy, 25 feet. b. Adjacent to collector streets as designated in the city growth policy, 20 feet. c. Adjacent to local streets, 15 feet. 2. Rear yard: 20 feet. a. 248 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 40 of 48 Adjacent to arterial streets as designated in the city growth policy, 25 feet. 3. Side yard: five feet; or zero feet for interior walls of townhouses. 4. All vehicle entrances, oriented to the street, into garages shall be no closer than 20 feet to a property line, unless explicitly authorized otherwise under this chapter. B. Minimum yards required for the R-S district are: 1. For lots created in the R-S district prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived: a. Front yard - 35 feet. b. Rear yard - 25 feet. c. Side yard - 25 feet. 2. Minimum yard requirements for newly created R-S lots shall be determined through the PUD review process. 3. All pens, coops, barns, stables or permanent corrals shall be set back not less than 100 feet from any residence or public road and not less than 50 feet from any property line. C. When a lot has one or more principal buildings which are oriented to place the functional rear of a building adjacent to a side lot line a setback from the property line equal to that for a rear yard shall be provided. D. All yards are subject to the provisions of sections 38.16.060, 38.21.060, 38.23.100, 38.24.100 and 38.26.100 Sec. 38.08.060. Building height. Maximum building height for each residential district shall be as follows: 249 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 41 of 48 Table 38.08.060 Residential Building Height Table Roof Pitch in Feet Maximum Building Height in Feet R- S R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 R- O RMH Less than 3:12 24 24 24 32 34 34 24 3:12 or greater but less than 6:12 30 28 28 38 38 38 28 6:12 or greater but less than 9:12 34 32 32 40 42 42 32 Equal to or greater than 9:12 38 36 36 42 44 44 36 Sec. 38.08.070. Residential garages. A. Attached residential garages shall not obscure the entrance to the dwelling. Attached garages are required to be clearly subordinate to the dwelling. A subordinate garage has two or more of the following characteristics: 1. The principal facade of the dwelling has been emphasized through the use of architectural features such as, but not limited to, porches, fenestration treatment, architectural details, height, orientation or gables, so that the non-garage portion of the residence is visually dominant; 2. The facade with the garage vehicle entrance is recessed at least four feet behind the facade of the dwelling containing the main entry; and/or 3. The area of the garage vehicle door comprises 30 percent or less of the total square footage, exclusive of any exposed roof areas, of the principal 250 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 42 of 48 facade of the dwelling. Principal facade shall include all wall areas parallel to the garage door. B. Alternative means of addressing the intent of this section will be considered. Detached garages are encouraged when they are compatible with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Vehicular garage access on nonprincipal facades and/or alleys is also encouraged. Sec. 38.08.080. Minimum density. A. New residential development shall provide a minimum net density. A minimum is required to support efficiency in use of land and provision of municipal services, and to advance the purposes and goals of this chapter and the adopted growth policy. Density may be achieved by averaging lot sizes over an entire development. 1. Minimum densities are: a. R-S — None. b. R-1, R-2, R-3, RMH — five dwellings per net acre. c. R-4 — eight dwellings per net acre. d. R-O — six dwellings per net acre when residences are the primary use of the land. Ord. No. 1830, § 9, adopted Sept. 24, 2012, repealed § 30.08.080 and renumbered § 38.08.090 as 38.08.080 as set out herein. The former § 38.08.080 pertained to additional RMH district performance standards and derived from Ord. No. 1645, § 18.16.080, adopted Aug. 15, 2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 4(18.16.080), adopted Feb. 20, 2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 2(18.16.080), adopted July 16, 2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. A (18.16.080), adopted July 6, 2009; and Ord. No. 1769, exh. E(18.16.080), adopted Dec. 28, 2009. APPENDIX B – 2013 LAND USE INVENTORY Shown in the following tables and charts is the updated land use inventory for the City of Bozeman through December 31, 2013. This is a generalized description of inventories at the end of 2013. 251 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 43 of 48 The land use classifications and zoning definitions are as follows. Some of the categories are oriented to land uses expected on the perimeter of the City to account for areas which may be inventoried during the development of a growth policy. Therefore, not all uses will appear in the annual urban land use inventory within the City. Land Use Classifications (MIXED) Mixed Use More than one principal use occurring on one lot. (RB) Restaurant/Bar A restaurant, coffee shop, cafeteria, grill, short order café, luncheonette, sandwich stand, drugstore, soda fountain, serving food; or an establishment where alcoholic beverages are served on premises. (CR) Commercial Retail sales, services, Banks Uses involving the sale of goods or services carried out for profit. (HM) Hotel/Motel A building or group of buildings, in which lodging is provided and offered to transient guests for compensation (not to include a boarding house, lodging house or rooming house)> Zoning Districts B-1 B-2 B-3 BP HMU M-1 M-2 PLI R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 REMU R-MH R-O R-S UMU Grand Total Land Uses AP 3.7 41.2 14.2 83.5 16.2 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 4.1 47.9 214.9 CA 3.5 54.3 2.8 12.9 0.2 40.7 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.7 118.8 CHURCH 5.2 4.0 0.0 6.6 11.3 28.5 10.6 21.2 0.5 1.5 89.5 CR 9.5 267.1 20.4 29.1 3.3 72.0 7.8 1.6 0.5 6.1 16.4 13.9 1.1 448.8 DTR 0.0 2.7 2.0 0.1 0.8 38.4 93.1 94.9 21.5 13.8 0.6 268.0 GOLF 5.0 0.4 171.5 176.8 HM 2.4 94.9 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.2 99.5 LM 6.2 1.2 5.2 8.5 291.4 34.4 0.8 0.7 7.7 4.1 7.7 367.9 MFR 17.6 4.8 1.6 0.0 36.8 31.5 243.1 148.4 80.2 2.9 566.9 MHMP 2.4 9.8 0.0 12.2 0.0 34.4 22.6 5.0 86.5 MIXED 19.2 91.0 14.3 1.2 4.5 62.0 9.4 2.0 0.2 1.4 6.8 16.4 0.0 16.1 24.5 269.0 PFP 2.2 10.5 9.7 0.2 20.8 0.7 396.3 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.1 0.0 451.4 POS 0.1 38.2 0.2 17.8 26.1 0.1 502.0 242.8 47.5 237.0 72.2 5.0 18.5 108.5 1,316.1 RB 1.6 37.3 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 41.2 ROW 16.1 233.5 46.2 45.1 11.4 212.7 371.5 140.2 355.9 203.1 400.7 143.7 6.8 65.6 87.2 6.7 2,346.6 SEF 0.0 0.2 7.4 41.1 4.5 714.7 29.3 4.6 32.3 2.9 25.7 1.2 0.5 864.5 SFR 1.5 30.8 7.5 0.0 8.7 12.3 4.7 7.4 698.1 307.5 366.5 137.1 0.0 13.3 98.3 1,693.9 UDV 0.4 171.6 92.3 62.9 150.1 153.2 327.9 89.8 304.5 189.0 127.3 31.3 128.3 406.5 2,235.0 VACANT 33.4 223.4 0.5 11.6 1.7 62.1 2.2 5.2 78.9 30.8 389.3 160.3 68.2 42.8 31.3 1,141.9 Grand Total 91.6 1,319.9 138.5 351.4 39.6 894.7 585.1 1,921.8 1,822.1 821.8 2,124.0 939.1 127.3 124.5 499.1 958.6 38.0 12,797.2 252 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 44 of 48 (CA) Commercial Auto sales, rental, parts, storage, gas, service Establishments primarily engaged in automotive related sale/services, fuels, repair, sales, washing, rental and leasing. (AP) Administrative Professional An establishment in which overall management functions occur and/or in which a recognized profession is maintained for the conduct of that profession. (LM) Light Manufacturing Fabrication of and/or assembly of goods from previously prepared materials, to include storage, and mini-warehousing. (HI) Heavy Industrial Those industries whose processing of products results in the emission of any atmospheric pollution, light flashes, glare, odor, noise or vibration which may be heard and/or felt off the premises and those industries which constitute a fire or explosion hazard. (GOLF) Golf Course A tract of land laid out for playing golf with at least nine holes; and improved with tees, greens, fairways and hazards; and which may include a clubhouse and/or shelter. (POS) Park or Open Space Parks, trails, recreational areas and other places that are capable of being used by the public for recreation, relaxation and social purposes. May include private land serving a property owners association for similar purposes (AG) Agricultural Land, usually 20 acres or greater, without dwellings (AGR) Agricultural Land, usually 20 acres or greater, with one or more dwellings (CE) Conservation Easement A property legally restricted from development for the purpose of preserving open space or habitat. May or may not have a dwelling or other uses on the property. 253 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 45 of 48 (CHURCH) Church A building where persons regularly assemble for religious worship and which, together with its accessory buildings and uses, is maintained and controlled by a religious body organized to sustain public worship. (PFP) Public Facility A building, structure, facility or complex, used by or providing services to the general public and constructed by either the federal, state, county or municipal government agency. Also includes utilities serving the general public such as electrical service. (SEF) School/Educational Facility Any building or part thereof which is constructed or used for public or private education or instruction; when not conducted as a commercial enterprise for the profit of individual owners or stockholders. (SFR) Single- Household Residential A building used for residential occupancy by one household, including multiple residences that share a common wall, as long as only one dwelling unit lies upon a single lot; townhomes. Also may include an accessory dwelling unit. (DTR) Duplex/Triplex Residential A building, or a portion thereof, used for occupancy by two or three households living independently of each other, with the units completely separated by a common wall, floor and/or ceiling and reside on one lot; including apartments and condos. (MFR) Multi- Household Residential A building, or portion thereof, used for occupancy by four or more households living independently of each other, with the units completely separated by a common wall, floor and/or ceiling; apartments, condos. (MHMP) Mobile Home, Mobile Park, Manufactured Housing A factory assembled structure(s), exceeding eight feet in width, originally equipped with the necessary service connections and originally made so as to be readily movable as a unit(s) on its own running gear and designed to be used as a dwelling unit(s) without a permanent foundation, whether or not the running gear has been removed. 254 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 46 of 48 (RP) Residential with Pasture Residential property, usually single-household, with 1 or more acres but not more than 20 acres, that has open pasture used for grazing animals. (RR) Rural Residential Detached single-household residential property located outside of the City limits that does not have pasture. (ROW) Rights-of- Way A public way established or dedicated for public purposes by duly recorded plat, deed, grant, easement, governmental authority or by operation of law; roads; railroads. (UDV) Undeveloped Land that is not ready to be occupied by buildings (needs to be subdivided; needs infrastructure) (VACANT) Vacant Land that is currently developed and ready to be occupied by buildings but is unoccupied; no buildings or buildings requiring significant improvement in order to be used. APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The site is approximately 16 acres in size and is located south of Opportunity Way and south of the Montana State University Stadium and east of what will be an extension of South 11th Avenue. Morningstar Elementary, and the end of Arnold Street, are located approximately 250 feet to the southwest of the property. The northern five acres of the subject property, immediately south of Opportunity Way, is currently zoned R-3, Residential, Medium Density District. A very small portion of the property (~0.39 acres) is zoned R-2, Residential Two Household Medium Density District and the balance of the 16 acres is zoned R-1, Residential Single Household, Low Density District. The property has historically been in agricultural use. This property is part of a larger 121 acre parcel which was annexed to the City in 1980 and was zoned to R-2, which at that time was Residential – Single Family – Medium Density District under City/County Zoning regulations. This zoning subsequently became R-1, Residential Single Household, Low Density District, in January of 2004 per the legislative decision of the City Commission to merge the City’s previous three single family zoning districts into one (i.e. the current R-1) single family zoning district. In 2006, the property owner filed zone map amendment application Z06205 requesting to rezone a 5 acre portion of this 16 acres to R-3, Residential Medium Density District along with the property to the immediate east. The City ultimately approved the zoning for the 255 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 47 of 48 northern 5 acre portion to R-3 but rezoned the eastern portion of the property to R-2, Residential Two Household Medium Density District as shown on the current zoning maps. A landowner may apply for a change in the zoning designation of their property at any time. In 2007, the property owner received City approval for preliminary plat application P06051 for the Allison Subdivision, Future Phases for the approximately 100 acres of the original 121 acres that had not yet been developed, and which encompasses the subject 16 acres. For this 16 acres, that preliminary plat denoted seven multi-household residential lots on the northern portion of the property zoned R-3 and single household residential lots on the remainder of the property. That preliminary plat approval expired in 2010. All entitlements and obligations associated with the preliminary plat were terminated when the preliminary plat expired. Hence, there are no current development entitlements in place for the subject property. The applicants have indicated, through a separate Site Plan application, which has been preliminarily reviewed by the DRC, that they wish to construct a 600 bedroom student oriented housing on the subject property which would be a permitted land use (classified as Group Living) in the R-4 zoning district. It should also be noted that Group Living is a permitted land use in all residential zoning districts (as shown in the Table of Residential Uses in Appendix A, subject to the specific site development standards of Section 38.22.105 of the BMC and other applicable development standards (e.g. zoning district height limitations, etc.) pertaining to the underlying zoning district. This provision is in keeping with Federal Fair Housing requirements. As previously indicated, however, a zone map amendment cannot be conditioned upon a specific development proposal but must be evaluated on any potential land uses permitted in the R-4 district and whether it meets the criteria for a zone map amendment in section 76-2-304 MCA. APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Due to this project being initially scheduled for public hearings in January, notice was initially published in the legal section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on December 15, 2013 and the site was posted on December 13, 2013. Notice was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the outer boundary of the parent tract on December 13, 2013. Following the rescheduling of the public hearings at the request of the applicant the project was re-noticed with a notice published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on January 12, 2014 and the site was posted with the new hearing dates on December 31, 2013. At the discretion of the Community Development Director under the noticing provisions of the BMC, noticing to nearby property owners was extended to 400 feet of the boundary of the parent tract on December 31, 2014. Notice was provided at least 15 days prior to the Zoning Commission public hearing date of February 4, 2014 and the City Commission public hearing date of February 24, 2014. 256 Z13268, Staff Report for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Page 48 of 48 The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on January 15, 2014 at the Sacajawea Middle School to inform the area residents of their project and to answer questions. A significant amount of public comment has been received regarding the requested ZMA. The public comment received as of the date of this report is included in the Zoning Commission’s review packets. Any comments received following the date of this staff report will be provided to review agencies prior to or at the public hearings. Public comments that have been received have generally focused on: impacts to the nearby residential neighborhoods, character/compatibility, traffic impacts, impacts to area property values, compliance with the growth policy, and impacts to the nearby schools (Morningstar and Sacajawea). APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Bon Ton Inc. Gene Graf, PO Box 906, Bozeman, MT 59771-0906 Applicant: Campus Crest Development, LLC, Chris Russ, 2100 Rexford Road #414, Charlotte, NC 28211 Representative: Madison Engineering, Chris Budeski, 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 Report By: Doug Riley, Senior Planner Dustin Johnson, Development Review Engineer 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT for CAMPUS CREST DEVELOPMENT Bozeman, Montana Prepared for CAMPUS CREST Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 January 8, 2014 281 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Campus Crest Development is an apartment complex that will accommodate approximately 600 resident units (bedrooms) contained within 224 apartments each having 2 and 3 bedrooms. The apartments would be located within 13 buildings including a club house with resident activities and services. In addition to the apartment buildings, there would be a pavilion, a pool, a volleyball court, and a barbeque pit for outdoor functions. The entire complex would be gated with a security station at the single access point, which would be located on S. 11th Avenue approximately 260’ south of the intersection with Opportunity Way. The narrative, figures, and attachments within this report encompass all of the intersections that would potentially be impacted by this development. Traffic data was collected in November 2013 and supplemented with data collected in 2011. It was determined that traffic on most of the surrounding streets had increased by approximately 5% to 6% in a two year period. For the analysis, all traffic data was increased to seasonal high values, which represent design hour volumes. Capacity calculations were completed for existing design hour volumes and it was determined that all intersection and all approaches currently operated at LOS “C” of better, except for the southbound left/thru lane at Kagy boulevard and S. 7th Avenue, which operates at LOS “E”. Trip generation estimates were based on the ITE Trip Generation report using land use code 220 “Apartments”. Even though there are a number of documented studies for similar campus based student apartments, the ITE code 220 was used to introduce conservative estimates that would result in the maximum degree of traffic impact that could be attributed to this development. Improvements associated with this development would provide a connection between S. 3rd Avenue and S. 11th Avenue, by constructing an Arnold Street extension to S. 11th Avenue and extending S. 11th Avenue south to an intersection with Arnold Street. A travel time analysis was performed that compares the current traffic routing with alternative routing using the two new street extensions. It was determined that the new street extensions would not provide a travel time advantage for traffic currently using S. 3rd Avenue. However, a portion of the subdivision west of S. 3rd Avenue could save time by using the new streets. It was determined that approximately 250 vehicles per day from that subdivision would use the new streets, which would reduce traffic on Arnold Street at its intersection with S. 3rd by approximately 22%. Analysis of trip distribution and development site traffic assignment indicated that only 2% of the site trips would be directed to and from the east using Arnold Street and the remaining trips would be to and from the north using S. 11th Avenue. Site traffic and redistributed traffic volumes were added to existing traffic and the subsequent capacity analysis indicated that there would be no overall changes in the study intersections’ levels of service. Additional capacity analysis for year 2015 traffic projections with full site development indicated that all intersections would still operate at level of service “C” or better. Only one movement, the southbound left-turn lane at Kagy Boulevard and S. 11th Avenue, would have a reduced level of service, going from “C” to “D”. Based on the study analysis it can be concluded that development of the proposed Campus Crest housing complex would not substantially impact safety or efficiency of the surrounding street system. The addition of street extensions will not substantially alter any existing traffic patterns. The nominal volume of redistributed traffic on the new connection streets would actually reduce traffic on Arnold Street at its intersection with S. 3rd Avenue. 282 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT for CAMPUS CREST DEVELOPMENT Bozeman, Montana Prepared for CAMPUS CREST Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 January 8, 2014 P.T.O.E. # 259 283 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Existing Traffic Volumes 4 Existing Capacity 6 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 7 Trip Generation 7 Trip Distribution 10 Traffic Redistribution 12 Site Traffic Assignment 14 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 14 Existing Plus Development Traffic Volumes 14 Capacity 17 Future Traffic 18 Future Capacity 21 CONCLUSIONS 23 APPENDIX A – CAPACITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B – COMPARATIVE TRIP GENERATION DATA APPENDIX C – TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS 284 ii LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing (2013) Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 7 Table 2. Campus Crest Trip Generation Summary 9 Table 3. Existing (2013) Redistributed Traffic Plus Site Traffic Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 18 Table 4. 2015 Traffic Projections Plus Site Traffic – Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 22 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Campus Crest Development Location Map 2 Figure 2. Existing Year 2013 Design Hour & ADT Traffic Volumes 5 Figure 3. Trip Distribution Percentages 11 Figure 4. Year 2013 Traffic Volumes Redistributed to New Streets 13 Figure 5. Campus Crest Full Development Traffic Assignment 15 Figure 6. Existing (2013) Plus Site and Redistributed Traffic 16 Figure 7. Year 2015 Projected Traffic with Full Site Development 20 285 Campus Crest Development TIS 286 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 1 INTRODUCTION The following narratives serve as a summary report of operational impacts that could be associated with the proposed development of the Campus Crest Subdivision. The narrative figures and attachments encompass all of the intersections that would potentially be impacted by this development, with the primary focus being centered on the intersection of Kagy and South11th Avenue. A previous study for a similar development (South University District Phase 1 Development) was completed by Marvin & Associates in 2011. Data from that study was updated with new 2013 counts. While the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and S. 19th Avenue is located approximately 1 mile from the site, it was not included in this study since the previous study indicated that there would be minimal impacts and ample reserve capacity at that intersection. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT The proposed development property would be located south of Kagy Boulevard with the northern boundary parallel to Opportunity Way; the eastern boundary located along an extension of Kenton Street from the north; the southern boundary along an extension of Arnold Street from the east; and the western boundary along an extension of University Way (herein known as S. 11th Avenue Extension) from the north (see Figure 1). The proposed development will accommodate approximately 600 resident units (bedrooms) contained within 224 apartments each having 2 and 3 bedrooms. The apartments would be located within 13 buildings including a club house with resident activities and services. In addition to the apartment buildings, there would be a pavilion, a pool, a volleyball court, and a barbeque pit for outdoor functions. The entire complex would be gated with a security station at the single access point, which would be located on S. 11th Avenue approximately 260’ south of the intersection with Opportunity Way. An additional emergency access will be available on Opportunity Way, which would be gated and locked. This Traffic Impact Study (TIS) addresses potential impacts associated with full development of both residential and commercial land uses within the Phase 1 property boundary. 287 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 2 288 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets & Intersections Potentially impacted intersections located within a mile of the proposed development site are Kagy Boulevard intersections with: 11th Avenue, S. 7th Avenue, Willson/S. 3rd Avenue. In addition, the intersection of Arnold Street and S. 3rd Avenue has the potential for impacts primarily from redistributed traffic that may use the Arnold Street extension to S. 11th Avenue. Kagy Boulevard is currently a three lane street with bike lanes in both directions. Kagy Boulevard extends from a termini point just west of S. 19th Avenue, past the MSU campus, to rural areas east of Bozeman. South 11th Avenue extends from its intersection with Kagy Boulevard north, thru the MSU campus, to an intersection with Main Street. It currently operates with one lane for each direction of travel and includes bikes lanes on either side. At its intersection with Kagy Boulevard it accommodates a separate left-turn lane and a thru/right-turn lane on the southbound approach. The northbound approach to that intersection is University Way, which has the same lane configuration as the southbound approach. South 7th Avenue extends from a point south of Kagy Boulevard to West Grant Street, approximately 0.35 miles north of Kagy. South 7th Avenue serves as a secondary access to surface parking lots, south of the MSU Student Union Building. In that capacity, travel demands are confined to a series of short term traffic surges throughout the day as classes change and events begin and end. The northbound approach to this intersection serves to access corporate offices with a finite demand in the am, pm, and noon hours. The southbound approach has a separate right-turn lane and a thru/left-turn lane, while the northbound approach has a single lane approach. A marked pedestrian crossing of Kagy Boulevard exists on the west side of the intersection. 289 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 4 S. 3rd Avenue extends from a point two miles south of the Kagy Boulevard intersection to an intersection with Goldenstein, on the southern end of Bozeman and connects to Willson Avenue at Kagy which runs two miles north and through the CBD area of Bozeman. South 3rd Avenue has various lane combinations along its length. At its intersection with Kagy Boulevard, it provides single thru lanes with auxiliary right and left turn lanes on the northbound and the southbound approaches. Arnold Street is an east-west residential street that begins just east of S. 3rd Avenue and terminates at barricades approximately 0.3 miles west of S. 3rd Avenue adjacent to an elementary school. The site improvements for Campus Crest Subdivision would extend Arnold Street from the closure west approximately 0.25 miles to an extension of S. 11th Avenue. Arnold Street is approximately 40’ wide and serves as the main access for a large residential subdivision. In addition, Arnold Street serves as the main access to the elementary school for vehicles and pedestrians. A marked school crossing of S. 3rd Avenue is located at the intersection of Arnold Street and S. 3rd Avenue. Existing Traffic Volumes Electronic traffic counters were used to count traffic on all approaches to South 11th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard in 2008 as a part of the traffic signal warrant study for that intersection. Intersection counts were also taken in 2011 for the University District development TIS. In order to update traffic counts, peak am and pm hour counts were taken in the last week in November 2013, prior to the Thanksgiving vacation. Since the turning movement counts were taken on different days of the week, a traffic count balancing routine was used to equalize the traffic demands to a common base. This routine determined that the previous 2011 counts had higher student parking activity in the parking lots south of Kagy Boulevard and west of S. 7th Avenue. This was probably due to the fact that the counts were taken the day before Thanksgiving vacation. Because the 2011 counts indicated 290 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 5 291 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 6 that the parking lot access volumes are typically higher than the 2013 counts, the S. 7th Avenue intersection volumes had to be adjusted upward to match what appears to a 5 to 6% increase in volumes since 2011. Once the counts were balanced and normalized the counts were adjusted to peak seasonal conditions and design hour traffic volumes were calculated. Figure 2 illustrates the adjusted counts that represent the existing (2013) am and pm design hour volumes that were used as the baseline for capacity calculations within this study. Also shown in Figure 2, are the Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) volumes that were calculated using the 2013 turning movement counts and percentage variations extracted from the 2008 hourly traffic volume count data. Pedestrian volumes for each intersection are also noted in Figure 2. No bicycle traffic was noted during the counting periods. Existing Capacity Capacity calculations were completed for the three intersections on Kagy Boulevard and the S. 3rd Avenue intersection with Arnold Street that would have potential impacts associated with development of the site, including the extensions of Arnold Street and S. 11th Avenue. Table 1, on the following page, summarizes the results of those calculations using Delay, Level-of-service (LOS), Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratios, and Vehicle Queue projections as Measures of Effectiveness (MOE). Capacity calculations can be found in Appendix A of this report. All intersections, approaches and movements currently operate at LOS “C” or better except for the southbound left/thru lane on South 7th Avenue, which operates at LOS “E” with 35.6 seconds delay per vehicle during the peak PM hour, or approximately 0.6 seconds longer than the cutoff for LOS “D”. This approach lane only accommodates 35 vehicles during that hour of the day. 292 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 7 Overall Intersection LLLL Control Delay (s/veh) 14.7 21.0 22.7 6.4 10.3 LOS B CCAB V/C Ratio 0.55 0.03 0.39 0.15 0.01 Queue Length (95%)1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 LLLL Control Delay (s/veh) 22.9 21.0 31.7 11.3 11.6 LOS C CCBB V/C Ratio 0.74 0.16 0.74 0.19 0.01 Queue Length (95%)2.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 LT Control Delay (s/veh)21.4 LOS C V/C Ratio 0.04 Queue Length (95%)0.1 LT Control Delay (s/veh)35.6 LOS E V/C Ratio 0.25 Queue Length (95%)0.9 LTRL LTRL Control Delay (s/veh) 24 11.1 25.8 23.7 10.4 13.3 27.6 8.3 12.0 LOS C BCCB BCAB V/C Ratio 0.54 0.29 0.48 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.58 0.01 0.07 Queue Length (95%)4412.0 3711.0 LTRL LTRL Control Delay (s/veh) 24.1 16.9 24.6 15.6 14.2 13.5 31.4 10.5 19.9 LOS C BCBB BCBB V/C Ratio 0.81 0.56 0.36 0.05 0.26 0.31 0.79 0.17 0.53 Queue Length (95%)7316.0 61023.0 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Kagy Boulevard & South 7th Avenue PM Hour Movement Group R C 0.200.28 1.1 Movement Group L A 0.07 LTR 19.5 0.30.2 0.8 C 0.89 12.0 LTR 24.3 C 15.4 TR 21.7 C 0.76 1.0 TR A 5.0 9.0 Table 1. Existing (2013) Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NB SB EB WB C 0.03 1.0 TR 21.5 C 0.16 TR 21.0 B 0.09 14.0 R C 0.06 TR 20.6 C 0.07 2.0 0.11 2.0 0.06 9.7 Movement Group Kagy Boulevard & South 11th Avenue AM Hour 0.37 5.3 8.5 A 0.1 L Kagy Boulevard & South 7th Avenue AM Hour Kagy Boulevard & South 11th Avenue PM Hour Movement Group A L 9.4 0.2 TR 20.4 C A L TR 8.0 0.47 A 8.6 TR 9.4 32.4 0.2 0.0 0.03 0.01 12.8 Movement Group TR T Kagy Boulevard & South 3rd Ave / Willson AM Hour 24.5 32.6 CC 0.26 0.72 3.0 7.0 Movement Group TR T Kagy Boulevard & South 3rd Ave / Willson PM Hour 32..3 25.2 CC 0.73 0.64 7.0 9.0 7.6 A BB B LMovement Group L LTR LTR South 3rd & Arnold Street AM Hour 7.4 11.1 A 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.5 0.10.0 Movement Group L LTR LTR South 3rd & Arnold Street PM Hour 8.6 19.0 15.0 AC 0.01 0.16 0.04 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.01 0.0 7.9 A 0.00 0.0 L DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Trip Generation The proposed apartment complexes that would be constructed is unlike any of the ITE Trip Generation Report land uses since it would be a cross between a Dormitory and Apartment buildings. The dwelling units in this development would actually be 2 and 3 bedroom apartments with individual students sharing the apartments. There would be one resident per bedroom and one parking space per resident, if fully occupied. Unlike the previous TIS for the University District completed in 2011, the individual apartments are not pods with multiple 293 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 8 students. Therefore, instead of attempting to develop trip generation rates for a hybrid land use, it was decided to use the Code 220 “Apartments” contained in the ITE Trip Generation Report, 9th Edition. However, the following conditions should be noted regarding the application of this generic land use data: The ITE Code 220 trip generation rates are derived from hundreds of studies across the United States for all types of apartment buildings in many different climates and locations within urban and rural confines. It can be assumed that few if any of the Code 220 studies had a homogeneous group of residents within walking distance of the major trip attraction. Code 220 trip generation rate units include apartments, persons, and vehicles. In this case, it is known that the apartments won’t be occupied by single family units. Therefore, the chosen trip generation rate was trips per person, which results in a higher number of trips than the unit rates for each apartment. It is highly probably that all of the bedrooms will not be occupied at any one time. This study has assumed full occupancy. The 2011 University District study relied on two published studies plus a separate study of Roskie Hall dormitory to arrive at trip generation rates. The rates used in that study were approximately 30% lower for average weekday trips (AWT) and approximately 50% less during the peak hours. Two additional studies for similar facilities have been discovered since 2011. The most comprehensive study of the two was completed in at the University of Minnesota By Spack Consulting. The technical memo produced by this study is contained in Appendix B of this report. The rates documented in that study were approximately 40% of the Code 220 rates for AWT and 30% of the am and pm peak hour Code 220 rates. 294 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 9 It is apparent from the above noted conditions that the ITE Code 220 trip generation rates will provide a very conservative estimate of the number of vehicular trips that would be generated by the proposed development. However, some tempering of the conservative nature of the ITE rates can be made by estimating alternative modes and trip classifications. Table 2 below summarizes the total vehicular and pedestrian/bike trip generation for this development based upon the ITE Code 220 “Apartments” land use. The 600 person units would generate approximately 2,018 on the average weekday. During the am hour there would be 167 trips and during the pm hour there would be 236 trips. Adjustments for trip mode were estimated based on walking distance less than a mile to the campus. While the majority of residents would probably bike or walk the relatively short distance, it can also be assumed that not all residents would necessarily make trips to and from the campus exclusively, especially during the peak hours. Thus, a relatively low estimate of 30% of the trips would be made by bicycle or pedestrian modes. In addition, there would be many on-site services and amenities within the site and it was assumed that at least 10% of the trips would be internal to the site, based upon documented internal capture trip rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Report. Table 2. Campus Crest Trip Generation Summary No. of Rate Total Total Total Land Use Units Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Enter Exit Rate Trips Enter Exit Total Trips ITE Code 220 Apartment 600 Persons 1 2018 2 167331343 236 153 83 Trip Mode & Class Pedestrian & Bicycle Trips (30%) 605 50 13 37 71 61 10 Internal Capture On-site Services (10%) 202 17 3 14 24 15 9 1211 100 17 83 3 141 77 64 1 - T = 3.47(X)-64.48 2 - T = 0.26(X)+10.98 (20% enter) 3 - T = 0..39(X)+2.03 (65% enter) Peak AM HourAverage Weekday Peak PM Hour ITE Trip Generation Report 9th Edition Net External Vehicular Trips = 295 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 10 With the trip mode and class adjustments in Table 2, the net number vehicular trips would be 1,211 AWT with 100 during the am peak hour and 141 during the pm peak hour. It should be noted that even though trip mode and class adjustments were made, these estimates should be considered very conservative. In addition, the am and pm hour trips to and from the site will not necessarily coincide with the peak hour on the adjacent street system. Overall, the trip generation rates contained herein would produce the absolute maximum vehicular traffic volume that could be attributed to this development and there is a good probability that any associated traffic impacts could be overstated. Trip Distribution The distribution of vehicular trips was based upon existing directional traffic movements at key intersections adjacent to the development site. Bike/ped distribution was based upon local area attractions and activities and travel distances. Figure 3 present the overall distribution of site generated trips to the existing street system. Approximately 38% of the vehicular trips would have origins and destinations to the north, on South 11th Avenue, and 40% would have origins and destinations to the north and west, using South 19th Avenue. Only 2% of the trips would be to the north and east, using South 7th Avenue, while 18% would have origins and destinations to the east and north downtown, using Kagy Boulevard and Willson. The remaining 2% of total vehicular trips would have origins and destinations in the commercial area south of Kagy, which would be accessed by Arnold Street and S 3rd Avenue. 296 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 11 297 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 12 Pedestrian and bicycle trips would all be directed to and from the north. It was assumed, based upon campus attraction densities and walking routes, that 100% of the ped/bike trips would use South 11th Avenue to cross Kagy Boulevard. Traffic Redistribution Since this subdivision would construct extensions of Arnold Street and S. 11th Avenue, this development would effectively provide a connection between S. 3rd Avenue and S. 11th Avenue. This connection would have the potential to provide a shorter route between origins and destinations east and north of the S 11th and Kagy Intersection and origins and destinations associated with traffic that currently enters the intersection of S 3rd Avenue and Arnold Street. In order to determine the relative volume of traffic that would use this new connection, a travel time analysis was performed that compares the current traffic routing with alternative routing using the two new street extensions. Appendix C contains a summary of travel time and delay calculations for am and pm hour traffic using the alternative routes. The calculations indicate that the travel time using the new route would be approximately 17 seconds longer for trips with origins and destinations between Arnold Street and S. 3rd Avenue and origins and destinations served by Kagy Boulevard west of S. 11th Avenue. For trips between S. 3rd Avenue and Arnold Street and S. 11th Avenue north of Kagy Boulevard, the new route would be approximately 40 seconds longer. Thus, the new route would not draw traffic off of S. 3rd Avenue, but would serve a portion of the residential subdivision west of S. 3rd Avenue. The area of this subdivision that would be served was delineated by equating 17 seconds of travel time to a distance of approximately 600 feet and the number of residences located within that area was determined to be approximately 60, which would result in approximately 600 AWT. Of the 600 AWT, approximately 250 trips would have origins and destinations that are currently directed through the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and S. 11th Avenue. Figure 4 summarizes both the AWT and peak hour volumes that would be redistributed by the new street connections. 298 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 13 299 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 14 Site Traffic Assignment Site traffic assignments were completed using the trip generation projections in Table 2 and the trip distribution percentages discussed in a preceding section. The traffic assignment projection is based on the development of Campus Crest with the S. 11th Avenue access to and from Kagy Boulevard and the Arnold Street access to S. 3rd Avenue as the only accesses to the surrounding street system. The traffic assignments shown in Figure 5 illustrate the peak am and pm hour site traffic (vehicular and bike/ped) at the key intersections, along with average weekday vehicular traffic on the street system links. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Existing Plus Development Traffic Volumes Figure 6 illustrates the combination of existing am and pm design hour traffic volumes, plus redistributed traffic, and development generated traffic at each of the key study intersections for full development of Campus Crest. Also shown in Figure 6 are the resultant AWT volumes and the percentage increases over existing traffic that would be attributable to this development. In this case, South 11th Avenue would have the highest volume of site generated traffic and also the highest percentage increase of any of the area streets at 245%. All of the other existing streets would have percentage increases less than 10%. It should be noted that, normally traffic impacts on streets that are less than 10% are not considered to be significant because daily traffic variations on any street routinely exceed 10%. 300 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 15 301 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 16 302 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 17 Capacity Capacity calculations (see Appendix A) indicate that all approaches and all movements at the key intersections would operate at LOS “C” or better during both the am and pm hour periods, if the Phase 1 Campus Crest development existed today. Table 3, below, present a summary of the MOE’s for each intersection and for each approach lane at each of the intersections. In comparing Table 3 to Table 1, it can be seen that there are slight variations in the LOS, delay and v/c ratios for individual lanes, but for overall intersection operations there would be no change in the LOS. Queue lengths would vary within individual lanes, but none of the lanes would experience an increase in vehicle queues exceeding available storage or interfere with access movements adjacent to the intersections. Typically, a two lane streets in an urban environment can carry between 6,000 and 9,000 vehicle per day and still operate at LOS “C”. Three lane streets can carry up to 18,000 vehicles while 5 lane streets max-out at approximately 30,000. Thus, none of the surrounding streets’ capacity would be substantially impacted by the development of the Phase 1 property, as proposed. The single access to the Campus Crest facility on S. 1th Avenue would also operate at LOS “B” or better for existing plus redistributed and site traffic conditions. 303 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 18 Overall Intersection LLLL Control Delay (s/veh) 14.8 22.0 23.1 6.1 10.4 LOS B CCAB V/C Ratio 0.55 0.26 0.44 0.15 0.02 Queue Length (95%)2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 LLLL Control Delay (s/veh) 23.2 20.5 32.2 12.3 12.5 LOS C CCBB V/C Ratio 0.76 0.24 0.75 0.21 0.06 Queue Length (95%)2.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 LT Control Delay (s/veh)21.4 LOS C V/C Ratio 0.04 Queue Length (95%)0.1 LT Control Delay (s/veh)35.9 LOS E V/C Ratio 0.25 Queue Length (95%)0.9 LTRL LTRL Control Delay (s/veh) 24 11.0 25.8 23.7 10.4 13.6 27.8 8.4 12.0 LOS C BCCB BCAB V/C Ratio 0.53 0.27 0.48 0.01 0.11 0.18 0.59 0.03 0.06 Queue Length (95%)4412.0 2611.0 LTRL LTRL Control Delay (s/veh) 24.7 16.7 24.6 15.6 14.2 14.0 31.9 10.3 20.3 LOS C BCBB BCBC V/C Ratio 0.82 0.55 0.36 0.05 0.26 0.34 0.80 0.16 0.54 Queue Length (95%)5424.0 71123.0 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LLTR 8.6 18.4 AC 7.4 12.4 LTR AB 0.01 0.11 7.9 A 25.4 T C 0.64 9.0 LLTR AA 0.2 0.0 0.07 0.01 9.4 Table 3. Existing (2013) Redistributed Traffic Plus Site Traffic - Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NB 9.6 SB EB WB Movement Group TR TR TR TR 21.7 21.7 20.8 Movement Group TR TR TR 2.0 3.0 5.0 Kagy Boulevard & South 11th Avenue AM Hour CC 19.9 20.1 9.0 0.19 0.73 AC 0.19 0.51 0.89 10.2 33.1 BCBC Movement Group R 0.09 3.0 3.0 7.0 Kagy Boulevard & South 11th Avenue PM Hour LTRMovement Group R Kagy Boulevard & South 7th Avenue AM Hour 13.8 0.3 L 19.5 9.4 0.2 B Kagy Boulevard & South 7th Avenue PM Hour 15.5 C 0.21 0.8 24.4 1.1 0.28 C Movement Group TR 24.6 0.27 0.72 8.0 T 32.7 C Movement Group TR 3.0 Kagy Boulevard & South 3rd Ave / Willson AM Hour Kagy Boulevard & South 3rd Ave / Willson PM Hour 34.0 C C 8.0 0.76 South 3rd & Arnold Street AM Hour 11.1 B Movement Group L 0.10.0 0.030.00 0.0 0.4 0.01 LTR 0.13 A 7.6 South 3rd & Arnold Street PM Hour 15.0 B Movement Group L L 0.10.0 0.040.01 5.3 0.0 0.5 8.5 CAA 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.1 LTR LL 0.19 0.37 0.2 TR 14.0 0.14 Movement Group L LR South 11th Avenue & Campus Crest Access AM 7.3 8.8 AA 0.01 0.11 0.0 0.4 Movement Group L LR South 11th Avenue & Campus Crest Access PM 7.4 8.7 AB 0.07 0.09 0.2 0.3 Future Traffic The City of Bozeman’s Capital Improvements Plan indicates that Kagy Boulevard will require reconstruction in the Year 2015. In order to determine if the additional traffic associated with this development would have operational impacts before the target year of 2015, it was necessary to project current traffic volumes to the year 2015 and add site generated traffic to year 2015 projections. 304 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 19 From counts taken in 2008, 2011, and 2013 and adjusting for seasonal variations, it was determined that traffic growth within the impacted area has been approximately 3% per year. Thus, traffic would increase on area streets by approximately 6% over the next two years. Figure 7, on the following page, illustrates the peak hour and average weekday traffic that would exist at key intersections and on street links in the year 2015, if Campus Crest Subdivision were fully developed at that time. In comparison to Figure 2 traffic volumes, it appears that there would be between 900 and 1,200 more AWT on Kagy Boulevard in the year 2015. 305 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 20 306 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 21 Future Capacity Table 5, below, presents a summary of the MOE’s for each intersection and for each approach lane at each of the intersections. In comparing Table 4 to Table 3, it can be seen that there are slight variations in the LOS, delay and v/c ratios for individual lanes, but for overall intersection operations there would be no change in the LOS. The southbound left-turn movement at the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and S. 11th Avenue would be reduced from LOS “C” to LOS “D” with 2.4 seconds more delay than LOS “C” criteria. Queue lengths would vary within individual lanes, but none of the lanes would experience an increase in vehicle queues that would exceed available storage or interfere with access movements except for the westbound thru lane at Kagy and S 11th Avenue. The projected queue of 16 vehicles in that lane would exceed the available separation distance between S 11th Avenue and a local access street west of S 11th Avenue by approximately 3 vehicles. However, there is sufficient latitude in the signal timing to allow a queue reduction without degrading other movements entering the intersection. 307 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 22 Overall Intersection LLLL Control Delay (s/veh) 15.7 22.1 23.2 6.7 10.4 LOS B CCAB V/C Ratio 0.58 0.26 0.46 0.17 0.02 Queue Length (95%)1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 LLLL Control Delay (s/veh) 24.7 21.8 37.4 13.6 12.5 LOS C CDBB V/C Ratio 0.79 0.25 0.79 0.23 0.07 Queue Length (95%)3.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 LT Control Delay (s/veh)22.5 LOS C V/C Ratio 0.05 Queue Length (95%)0.1 LT Control Delay (s/veh)37.2 LOS E V/C Ratio 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1.0 LTRL LTRL Control Delay (s/veh) 23.8 12.0 27.3 24.6 11.3 13.6 26.8 8.2 11.8 LOS C BCCB BCAB V/C Ratio 0.56 0.30 0.52 0.09 0.12 0.19 0.57 0.03 0.07 Queue Length (95%)5432.0 3711.0 LTRL LTRL Control Delay (s/veh) 25.7 19.4 24.4 15.4 14.8 14.8 33.3 10.8 23.1 LOS C BCBB BCBC V/C Ratio 0.85 0.63 0.36 0.04 0.27 0.38 0.82 0.17 0.60 Queue Length (95%)6414.0 71045.0 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)0.2 0.3 AB 0.07 0.09 Movement Group L LR South 11th Avenue & Campus Crest Access PM 7.4 8.7 0.01 0.11 0.0 0.4 South 11th Avenue & Campus Crest Access AM 7.3 8.9 AA 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Movement Group L LR AACC 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.04 Movement Group L L LTR LTR South 3rd & Arnold Street PM Hour 8.7 7.7 19.6 15.6 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 South 3rd & Arnold Street AM Hour 7.4 7.9 12.8 11.3 AABB 0.01 0.77 0.67 8.0 10.0 Movement Group L L LTR LTR 3.0 7.0 Movement Group TR T Kagy Boulevard & South 3rd Ave / Willson PM Hour 34.3 25.8 CC Movement Group TR T Kagy Boulevard & South 3rd Ave / Willson AM Hour 25.7 31.3 CC 0.29 71.00 0.21 0.07 0.01 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.0 Kagy Boulevard & South 7th Avenue PM Hour 25.0 15.7 9.4 9.7 DCAA 0.29 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 Movement Group LTR R LL CBAA 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.03 Movement Group LTR R LL Kagy Boulevard & South 7th Avenue AM Hour 20.6 14.4 9.5 8.6 0.20 0.54 0.90 3.0 4.0 7.0 16.0 Kagy Boulevard & South 11th Avenue PM Hour 21.1 21.4 10.7 34.5 CCBC 0.15 1.0 2.0 6.0 11.0 Movement Group TR TR TR TR CCAC 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.78 Movement Group TR TR TR TR Kagy Boulevard & South 11th Avenue AM Hour 21.7 21.7 5.3 22.7 Table 4. 2015 Traffic Projections Plus Site Traffic - Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NB SB EB WB 308 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Campus Crest Development Traffic Impact Study Page 23 CONCLUSIONS The development of the Campus Crest property, as proposed, would not substantially impact the safety and efficiency of any of the area streets or intersections. The southbound, combination thru/left-turn movement at the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and South 7th Avenue currently operates at LOS “E” during the peak pm hour period. That movement currently has a pm peak demand totaling 35 vehicles and there would be no change in that volume as result of the proposed site development. Additional site traffic that would enter the intersection would increase the delay associated with that movement by 0.4 seconds per vehicle or 14.0 seconds for the entire hour, according to the HCM calculations. It should be noted that there are 42 pedestrian that use the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection and each pedestrian crossing creates a gap that the southbound thru/left-turn movement can use to enter the intersection. Thus, the LOS for that movement is likely higher than the calculations would indicate. Because South 7th Avenue is a local street serving drivers that are intimately familiar with traffic conditions and alternative routes are available, it would not be cost-effective to reconstruct or change the operation at this intersection. Future traffic (year 2015) on area streets is projected to increase by approximately 6% over current traffic volumes. Even with that amount of growth, in combination with full development of the Campus Crest plan, all of the existing streets and intersections would operate at or above LOS C. Conflicts between the first local access street west of S 11th Avenue and the westbound thru lane queues would only have the potential to occur during a 15 minute period in the peak pm hour. If it is determined that this conflict is detrimental to operations, the signal timing could be adjusted to reduce westbound queue lengths, as a mitigating measure. 309 Appendix A CAPACITY CALCULATIONS 310 2013 Existing Capacity 311 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013R MarvinAM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th Exist AM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 75 0.93 0 420 0.93 0 20 0.93 0 5 0.93 0 440 0.93 0 130 0.93 0 5 0.93 0 5 0.93 0 5 0.93 0 80 0.93 0 15 0.93 0 30 0.93 0 5 3 0 0 --- --- 30 5 0 0 --- --- 2 21 0 0 --- --- 5 41 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 11.0 4.0 0.0 25.0 3.5 1.5 10.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 60.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 188 0.000 0.500 5.4 A * Lpro 331 0.045 0.183 L 0.156 6.4 A TR 1260 0.248 0.667 TR 0.371 5.3 A WB L 392 0.005 0.417 L 0.013 10.3 B 21.6 C * TR 769 0.315 0.417 TR 0.756 21.7 C NB L 204 0.004 0.167 L 0.025 21.0 C 21.0 C TR 292 0.005 0.167 TR 0.027 21.0 C SB * L 223 0.064 0.167 L 0.386 22.7 C 22.3 C TR 265 0.027 0.167 TR 0.162 21.5 C Intersection: Delay = 14.7sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.55 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 312 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013R MarvinAM Hour Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th Exist AM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 2 13.9 0.0 TR 3 / 5 20.9 0.0 All 20.0 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 15.4 0.0 TR 6 / 9 12.5 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 8.3 0.0 TR 0 / 1 15.7 0.0 All 14.1 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 8.7 0.0 TR 1 / 1 18.6 0.0 All 13.0 0.0 Intersect. 14.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 75 420 20 5 440 130 5 5 5 80 15 30 1 11 04 2 24 24 2 24 24 3 9 24 3 9 24 313 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013R MarvinPM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th Exist PM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 60 0.94 0 510 0.94 0 5 0.94 0 5 0.94 0 540 0.94 0 170 0.94 0 50 0.94 0 25 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 230 0.94 0 5 0.94 0 85 0.94 0 3 20 0 0 --- --- 50 3 0 0 --- --- 5 10 0 0 --- --- 50 12 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 9.0 4.0 0.0 30.0 3.5 1.5 17.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 70.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 109 0.000 0.500 8.9 A * Lpro 232 0.035 0.129 L 0.188 11.3 B TR 1167 0.287 0.614 TR 0.467 8.6 A WB L 372 0.006 0.429 L 0.013 11.6 B 32.2 C * TR 792 0.380 0.429 TR 0.886 32.4 C NB L 329 0.039 0.243 L 0.161 21.0 C 20.8 C TR 449 0.017 0.243 TR 0.071 20.4 C SB * L 333 0.179 0.243 L 0.736 31.7 C 30.1 C TR 392 0.026 0.243 TR 0.107 20.6 C Intersection: Delay = 22.9sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.74 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.59SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 314 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013R MarvinPM Hour Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th Exist PM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 4 10.3 0.0 TR 5 / 8 16.8 0.0 All 15.9 0.0 WB L 0 / 2 7.7 0.0 TR 10 / 12 10.2 0.0 All 10.1 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 6.8 0.0 TR 1 / 2 16.2 0.0 All 11.8 0.0 SB L 4 / 6 6.9 0.0 TR 1 / 2 20.8 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 60 510 5 5 540 170 50 25 10 230 5 85 1 9 04 2 29 24 2 29 24 3 16 24 3 16 24 315 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Date Performed 12/8/13 Analysis Time Period Peak AM Hour Intersection Kagy & N 7th Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Kagy Blvd North/South Street: North 7th Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)55 425 20 30 580 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)60 467 21 32 637 71 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 5 5 5 5 35 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 5 5 5 5 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (veh/h)60 32 15 10 38 C (m) (veh/h)878 1069 264 230 438 v/c 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.09 95% queue length 0.22 0.09 0.18 0.14 0.28 Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 8.5 19.5 21.4 14.0 LOS A A C C B Approach Delay (s/veh)----19.5 15.5 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/10/2013 1:07 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/10/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k2DFE.tmp 316 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak PM Hour Intersection Kagy & N 7th Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Kagy Blvd North/South Street: South 7th Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)50 720 15 5 590 40 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)55 800 16 5 655 44 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)15 5 45 30 5 80 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)16 5 50 33 5 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (veh/h)55 5 71 38 88 C (m) (veh/h)878 779 257 155 435 v/c 0.06 0.01 0.28 0.25 0.20 95% queue length 0.20 0.02 1.09 0.92 0.75 Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 9.7 24.3 35.6 15.4 LOS A A C E C Approach Delay (s/veh)----24.3 21.5 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/10/2013 1:14 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/10/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kCC20.tmp 317 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013R MarvinAM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Exist AM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 50 0.92 0 260 0.92 0 40 0.92 0 25 0.92 0 325 0.92 0 0 0.90 2 180 0.92 0 155 0.92 0 60 0.92 0 60 0.92 0 50 0.92 0 40 0.92 0 30 3 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 35 1 0 0 --- --- 10 3 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L L LTP LT R L L LTP LTP 0 8.0 3.0 0.0 18.0 3.5 1.5 15.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 70.0 Sec 16.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 154 0.000 0.329 24.8 C * Lpro 206 0.030 0.114 L 0.150 13.3 B T 489 0.149 0.257 T 0.579 27.6 C R 828 0.007 0.514 R 0.013 8.3 A WB Lper 211 0.000 0.329 31.2 C Lpro 206 0.015 0.114 L 0.065 12.0 B * T 489 0.186 0.257 T 0.722 32.6 C NB Lper 286 0.000 0.257 18.3 B * Lpro 387 0.109 0.214 L 0.291 11.1 B * T 353 0.088 0.186 T 0.476 25.8 C R 299 0.017 0.186 R 0.090 23.7 C SB Lper 214 0.000 0.257 18.5 B Lpro 387 0.036 0.214 L 0.108 10.4 B TR 332 0.049 0.186 TR 0.262 24.5 C Intersection: Delay = 24.0sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.54 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.41SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 318 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013R MarvinAM Hour Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Exist AM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 3 9.5 0.0 T 5 / 7 12.0 0.0 R 0 / 1 24.3 0.0 All 12.0 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 14.0 0.0 T 6 / 7 9.2 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 NB L 2 / 4 11.8 0.0 T 2 / 4 15.1 0.0 R 1 / 1 15.6 0.0 All 14.2 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 11.1 0.0 TR 1 / 3 14.7 0.0 All 13.8 0.0 Intersect. 11.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 50 260 40 25 325 180 155 60 60 50 40 1 8 03 1 8 03 2 17 24 2 17 24 3 15 03 3 15 03 3 15 03 4 12 24 4 12 24 319 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013R MarvinPM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Exist PM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 110 0.94 0 490 0.94 0 265 0.94 0 150 0.94 0 395 0.94 0 0 0.90 2 190 0.94 0 145 0.94 0 40 0.94 0 120 0.94 0 255 0.94 0 60 0.94 0 130 5 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 15 3 0 0 --- --- 25 2 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L L R LTP LT R L L LTP LTP 0 7.0 3.0 0.0 26.0 3.5 1.5 9.0 3.0 0.0 17.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 75.0 Sec 16.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 211 0.000 0.413 24.9 C Lpro 168 0.065 0.093 L 0.309 13.5 B * T 659 0.274 0.347 T 0.791 31.4 C R 814 0.090 0.507 R 0.177 10.5 B WB Lper 132 0.000 0.413 23.7 C * Lpro 168 0.089 0.093 L 0.533 19.9 B T 659 0.221 0.347 T 0.637 25.2 C NB Lper 145 0.000 0.293 19.9 B * Lpro 217 0.112 0.120 L 0.558 16.9 B T 431 0.081 0.227 T 0.357 24.6 C R 579 0.017 0.360 R 0.047 15.6 B SB Lper 276 0.000 0.293 27.0 C Lpro 217 0.071 0.120 L 0.260 14.2 B * TR 423 0.165 0.227 TR 0.728 32.3 C Intersection: Delay = 24.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.81 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.64SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 320 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013R MarvinPM Hour Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Exist PM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 3 / 6 7.3 0.0 T 8 / 10 12.9 0.0 R 2 / 2 17.7 0.0 All 12.6 0.0 WB L 2 / 3 10.4 0.0 T 7 / 9 10.1 0.0 All 10.2 0.0 NB L 4 / 7 6.6 0.0 T 2 / 3 15.9 0.0 R 1 / 1 14.8 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 SB L 2 / 6 7.8 0.0 TR 5 / 7 11.5 0.0 All 10.7 0.0 Intersect. 11.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 110 490 265 150 395 190 145 40 120 255 60 1 7 03 1 7 03 1 7 03 2 25 24 2 25 24 3 9 03 3 9 03 3 9 03 4 16 24 4 16 24 321 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period AM Hour Intersection S 3rd Ave & Arnold St Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Arnold Street North/South Street: S 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)10 260 5 5 55 35 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)11 305 5 5 64 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)55 5 5 5 5 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)64 5 5 5 5 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)11 5 21 74 C (m) (veh/h)1499 1262 612 537 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.14 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 7.9 11.1 12.8 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)----11.1 12.8 Approach LOS ----B B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/8/2013 11:00 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/8/2013file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob\Local Settings\Temp\u2k34.tmp 322 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period PM Hour Intersection S 3rd Ave & Arnold St Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Arnold Street North/South Street: S 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 185 5 10 490 45 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 205 5 11 544 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)35 5 5 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)38 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)5 11 15 48 C (m) (veh/h)992 1373 376 305 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.16 95% queue length 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.55 Control Delay (s/veh)8.6 7.6 15.0 19.0 LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s/veh)----15.0 19.0 Approach LOS ----B C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/8/2013 11:02 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/8/2013file://C:\Documents and Settings\Bob\Local Settings\Temp\u2k3A.tmp 323 2013 Existing Plus Site Traffic Capacity 324 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinAM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy & 11th Exist Plus AM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 75 0.93 0 418 0.93 0 29 0.93 0 8 0.93 0 430 0.93 0 125 0.93 0 48 0.93 0 41 0.93 0 22 0.93 0 78 0.93 0 23 0.93 0 30 0.93 0 5 3 0 0 --- --- 30 5 0 0 --- --- 10 55 0 0 --- --- 5 41 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 11.0 4.0 0.0 25.0 3.5 1.5 10.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 60.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 202 0.000 0.500 5.4 A * Lpro 331 0.045 0.183 L 0.152 6.1 A TR 1256 0.252 0.667 TR 0.378 5.3 A WB L 389 0.010 0.417 L 0.023 10.4 B 20.6 C * TR 770 0.306 0.417 TR 0.732 20.8 C NB L 203 0.043 0.167 L 0.256 22.0 C 21.8 C TR 294 0.032 0.167 TR 0.194 21.7 C SB * L 193 0.072 0.167 L 0.435 23.1 C 22.5 C TR 273 0.032 0.167 TR 0.190 21.7 C Intersection: Delay = 14.8sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.55 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 325 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinAM Hour Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy & 11th Exist Plus AM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 0 / 2 18.9 0.0 TR 3 / 5 21.4 0.0 All 21.2 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 7.7 0.0 TR 6 / 9 13.3 0.0 All 13.1 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 6.9 0.0 TR 1 / 2 15.7 0.0 All 12.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 7.0 0.0 TR 1 / 3 14.7 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 Intersect. 15.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 75 418 29 8 430 125 48 41 22 78 23 30 1 11 04 2 24 24 2 24 24 3 9 24 3 9 24 326 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinPM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th Exist Plus PM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 60 0.94 0 500 0.94 0 46 0.94 0 20 0.94 0 535 0.94 0 167 0.94 0 81 0.94 0 52 0.94 0 23 0.94 0 224 0.94 0 40 0.94 0 85 0.94 0 10 20 0 0 --- --- 50 3 0 0 --- --- 10 71 0 0 --- --- 45 12 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 8.0 4.0 0.0 30.0 3.5 1.5 19.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 71.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 107 0.000 0.493 10.4 B * Lpro 203 0.035 0.113 L 0.206 12.3 B TR 1112 0.303 0.592 TR 0.513 10.2 B WB L 341 0.026 0.423 L 0.062 12.5 B 32.5 C * TR 781 0.375 0.423 TR 0.887 33.1 C NB L 349 0.066 0.268 L 0.246 20.5 C 20.2 C TR 480 0.038 0.268 TR 0.144 19.9 B SB * L 318 0.200 0.268 L 0.748 32.2 C 29.0 C TR 465 0.049 0.268 TR 0.185 20.1 C Intersection: Delay = 23.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.76 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.61SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 327 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinPM Hour Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th Exist Plus PM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 4 9.3 0.0 TR 5 / 6 17.4 0.0 All 16.1 0.0 WB L 1 / 2 8.3 0.0 TR 15 / 17 6.8 0.0 All 6.9 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 7.7 0.0 TR 1 / 2 17.3 0.0 All 13.1 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 7.3 0.0 TR 2 / 3 17.2 0.0 All 11.8 0.0 Intersect. 9.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 60 500 46 20 535 167 81 52 23 224 40 85 1 8 04 2 28 24 2 28 24 3 18 24 3 18 24 328 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Date Performed 12/8/13 Analysis Time Period Peak AM Hour Intersection Kagy & N 7th Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Kagy Blvd North/South Street: North 7th Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)57 436 20 30 568 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)62 479 21 32 624 71 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 5 5 5 5 35 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 5 5 5 5 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (veh/h)62 32 15 10 38 C (m) (veh/h)888 1058 263 229 445 v/c 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.09 95% queue length 0.22 0.09 0.18 0.14 0.28 Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 8.5 19.5 21.4 13.8 LOS A A C C B Approach Delay (s/veh)----19.5 15.4 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/13/2013 4:46 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/13/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k1DB3.tmp 329 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak PM Hour Intersection Kagy & N 7th Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Kagy Blvd North/South Street: South 7th Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)52 716 15 5 596 40 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)57 795 16 5 662 44 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)15 5 45 30 5 81 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)16 5 50 33 5 90 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (veh/h)57 5 71 38 90 C (m) (veh/h)873 784 256 154 431 v/c 0.07 0.01 0.28 0.25 0.21 95% queue length 0.21 0.02 1.10 0.92 0.78 Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 9.6 24.4 35.9 15.5 LOS A A C E C Approach Delay (s/veh)----24.4 21.6 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/13/2013 4:49 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/13/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k3B41.tmp 330 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinAM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Exist Plus AM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 61 0.92 0 264 0.92 0 36 0.92 0 25 0.92 0 326 0.92 0 0 0.90 2 165 0.92 0 155 0.92 0 60 0.92 0 60 0.92 0 50 0.92 0 42 0.92 0 15 3 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 35 1 0 0 --- --- 10 3 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L L LTP LT R L L LTP LTP 0 8.0 3.0 0.0 18.0 3.5 1.5 15.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 70.0 Sec 16.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 153 0.000 0.329 24.2 C * Lpro 206 0.037 0.114 L 0.184 13.6 B T 489 0.151 0.257 T 0.587 27.8 C R 828 0.014 0.514 R 0.028 8.4 A WB Lper 208 0.000 0.329 31.3 C Lpro 206 0.015 0.114 L 0.065 12.0 B * T 489 0.186 0.257 T 0.724 32.7 C NB Lper 284 0.000 0.257 18.6 B * Lpro 387 0.099 0.214 L 0.267 11.0 B * T 353 0.088 0.186 T 0.476 25.8 C R 299 0.017 0.186 R 0.090 23.7 C SB Lper 214 0.000 0.257 18.6 B Lpro 387 0.036 0.214 L 0.108 10.4 B TR 331 0.050 0.186 TR 0.269 24.6 C Intersection: Delay = 24.0sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.53 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.41SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 331 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinAM Hour Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Exist Plus AM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 2 9.3 0.0 T 4 / 6 12.2 0.0 R 0 / 1 21.8 0.0 All 12.1 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 13.2 0.0 T 6 / 8 9.5 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 NB L 2 / 4 11.6 0.0 T 2 / 4 15.0 0.0 R 1 / 1 17.5 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 13.1 0.0 TR 1 / 3 15.8 0.0 All 15.2 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 61 264 36 25 326 165 155 60 60 50 42 1 8 03 1 8 03 2 17 24 2 17 24 3 15 03 3 15 03 3 15 03 4 12 24 4 12 24 332 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinPM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Existing Plus PM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 118 0.94 0 494 0.94 0 249 0.94 0 150 0.94 0 399 0.94 0 0 0.90 2 181 0.94 0 145 0.94 0 40 0.94 0 120 0.94 0 255 0.94 0 70 0.94 0 130 5 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 15 3 0 0 --- --- 25 2 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L L R LTP LT R L L LTP LTP 0 7.0 3.0 0.0 26.0 3.5 1.5 9.0 3.0 0.0 17.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 75.0 Sec 16.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 207 0.000 0.413 25.5 C Lpro 168 0.070 0.093 L 0.336 14.0 B * T 659 0.277 0.347 T 0.798 31.9 C R 814 0.079 0.507 R 0.156 10.3 B WB Lper 128 0.000 0.413 24.0 C * Lpro 168 0.089 0.093 L 0.541 20.3 C T 659 0.223 0.347 T 0.643 25.4 C NB Lper 136 0.000 0.293 19.9 B * Lpro 217 0.107 0.120 L 0.547 16.7 B T 431 0.081 0.227 T 0.357 24.6 C R 579 0.017 0.360 R 0.047 15.6 B SB Lper 276 0.000 0.293 28.4 C Lpro 217 0.071 0.120 L 0.260 14.2 B * TR 421 0.172 0.227 TR 0.758 34.0 C Intersection: Delay = 24.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.82 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.64SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 333 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2013 Plus SiteR MarvinPM Hour Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd Existing Plus PM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 3 / 7 6.6 0.0 T 8 / 11 12.5 0.0 R 2 / 2 18.8 0.0 All 12.1 0.0 WB L 2 / 3 8.5 0.0 T 7 / 9 11.1 0.0 All 10.8 0.0 NB L 3 / 5 7.3 0.0 T 2 / 4 16.4 0.0 R 1 / 2 12.3 0.0 All 11.9 0.0 SB L 2 / 4 7.0 0.0 TR 6 / 8 11.6 0.0 All 10.6 0.0 Intersect. 11.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 118 494 249 150 399 181 145 40 120 255 70 1 7 03 1 7 03 1 7 03 2 25 24 2 25 24 3 9 03 3 9 03 3 9 03 4 16 24 4 16 24 334 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period AM Hour Intersection S 3rd Ave & Arnold St Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Arnold Street North/South Street: S 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)10 260 5 5 55 32 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)11 305 5 5 64 37 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)42 5 5 5 5 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)49 5 5 5 5 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)11 5 21 59 C (m) (veh/h)1504 1262 613 543 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.11 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.36 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 7.9 11.1 12.4 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)----11.1 12.4 Approach LOS ----B B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/13/2013 4:52 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/13/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kD925.tmp 335 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period PM Hour Intersection S 3rd Ave & Arnold St Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Existing Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Arnold Street North/South Street: S 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 185 5 10 490 43 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 205 5 11 544 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)28 5 5 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)31 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)5 11 15 41 C (m) (veh/h)995 1373 376 309 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.13 95% queue length 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.45 Control Delay (s/veh)8.6 7.6 15.0 18.4 LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s/veh)----15.0 18.4 Approach LOS ----B C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/13/2013 4:54 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/13/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k87E.tmp 336 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/13/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak AM Intersection Campus Crest 7 S 11th Avenue Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Site & Redistributed Project Description Campus Crest Development East/West Street: Campus Crest Access North/South Street: S 11th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)15 1 16 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 21 1 22 5 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)2 81 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 2 0 115 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)22 117 C (m) (veh/h)1607 1058 v/c 0.01 0.11 95% queue length 0.04 0.37 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----8.8 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/13/2013 1:43 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/13/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k38DD.tmp 337 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/13/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak PM Intersection Campus Crest 7 S 11th Avenue Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2013 Site & Redistributed Project Description Campus Crest Development East/West Street: Campus Crest Access North/South Street: S 11th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)8 2 75 16 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 11 2 107 22 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 63 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 1 0 90 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)107 91 C (m) (veh/h)1619 1068 v/c 0.07 0.09 95% queue length 0.21 0.28 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 8.7 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----8.7 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/13/2013 1:45 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/13/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k38DD.tmp 338 2015 Projections Capacity 339 HCM Analysis Summary 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinAM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th 2015 AM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 79 0.93 0 432 0.93 0 30 0.93 0 8 0.93 0 455 0.93 0 132 0.93 0 49 0.93 0 42 0.93 0 22 0.93 0 82 0.93 0 24 0.93 0 32 0.93 0 5 3 0 0 --- --- 30 5 0 0 --- --- 10 55 0 0 --- --- 5 41 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 11.0 4.0 0.0 25.0 3.5 1.5 10.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 60.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 175 0.000 0.500 5.6 A * Lpro 331 0.047 0.183 L 0.168 6.7 A TR 1256 0.261 0.667 TR 0.392 5.4 A WB L 383 0.010 0.417 L 0.023 10.4 B 22.5 C * TR 770 0.324 0.417 TR 0.778 22.7 C NB L 202 0.044 0.167 L 0.262 22.1 C 21.9 C TR 294 0.033 0.167 TR 0.197 21.7 C SB * L 193 0.076 0.167 L 0.456 23.2 C 22.6 C TR 273 0.034 0.167 TR 0.201 21.7 C Intersection: Delay = 15.7sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.58 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.45SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 340 NETSIM Summary Results 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinAM Hour Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th 2015 AM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 4 13.5 0.0 TR 3 / 6 21.9 0.0 All 20.6 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 14.7 0.0 TR 7 / 11 12.2 0.0 All 12.3 0.0 NB L 1 / 1 6.8 0.0 TR 1 / 1 18.5 0.0 All 13.9 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 8.1 0.0 TR 1 / 2 15.3 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 Intersect. 14.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 79 432 30 8 455 132 49 42 22 82 24 32 1 11 04 2 24 24 2 24 24 3 9 24 3 9 24 341 HCM Analysis Summary 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinPM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th 2015 PM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 63 0.94 0 530 0.94 0 47 0.94 0 21 0.94 0 566 0.94 0 177 0.94 0 83 0.94 0 53 0.94 0 24 0.94 0 236 0.94 0 41 0.94 0 90 0.94 0 10 20 0 0 --- --- 55 3 0 0 --- --- 10 71 0 0 --- --- 45 12 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 8.0 4.0 0.0 33.0 3.5 1.5 20.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 75.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 101 0.000 0.507 10.9 B * Lpro 193 0.037 0.107 L 0.228 13.6 B TR 1128 0.321 0.600 TR 0.535 10.7 B WB L 328 0.029 0.440 L 0.067 12.5 B 33.8 C * TR 813 0.396 0.440 TR 0.900 34.5 C NB L 346 0.068 0.267 L 0.254 21.8 C 21.5 C TR 477 0.040 0.267 TR 0.149 21.1 C SB * L 317 0.211 0.267 L 0.792 37.4 D 33.1 C TR 462 0.053 0.267 TR 0.199 21.4 C Intersection: Delay = 24.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.79 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.64SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 342 NETSIM Summary Results 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinPM Hour Kagy Blvd/S 11th Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 11th 2015 PM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 2 / 4 8.2 0.0 TR 5 / 7 18.1 0.0 All 16.6 0.0 WB L 1 / 3 7.6 0.0 TR 14 / 16 7.5 0.0 All 7.5 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 7.8 0.0 TR 1 / 3 14.1 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 SB L 4 / 6 6.1 0.0 TR 2 / 4 17.4 0.0 All 10.7 0.0 Intersect. 10.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 63 530 47 21 566 177 83 53 24 236 41 90 1 8 04 2 32 24 2 32 24 3 19 24 3 19 24 343 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Date Performed 12/8/13 Analysis Time Period Peak AM Hour Intersection Kagy & N 7th Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year 2015 Projections Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Kagy Blvd North/South Street: North 7th Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)59 445 20 32 600 69 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)64 489 21 35 659 75 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 5 5 5 5 37 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 5 5 5 5 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (veh/h)64 35 15 10 40 C (m) (veh/h)858 1049 246 216 424 v/c 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.09 95% queue length 0.24 0.10 0.19 0.14 0.31 Control Delay (s/veh)9.5 8.6 20.6 22.5 14.4 LOS A A C C B Approach Delay (s/veh)----20.6 16.0 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/16/2013 5:02 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/16/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k93EC.tmp 344 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak PM Hour Intersection Kagy & N 7th Jurisdiction Bozeman Analysis Year 2015 Projections Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Kagy Blvd North/South Street: South 7th Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)54 743 15 5 615 42 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)58 807 16 5 668 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)15 5 47 32 5 85 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)16 5 51 34 5 92 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (veh/h)58 5 72 39 92 C (m) (veh/h)867 775 251 150 429 v/c 0.07 0.01 0.29 0.26 0.21 95% queue length 0.21 0.02 1.15 0.98 0.80 Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 9.7 25.0 37.2 15.7 LOS A A D E C Approach Delay (s/veh)----25.0 22.1 Approach LOS ----D C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/16/2013 5:08 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/16/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE019.tmp 345 HCM Analysis Summary 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinAM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd 2015 AM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 64 0.92 0 279 0.92 0 38 0.92 0 26 0.92 0 345 0.92 0 0 0.90 2 175 0.92 0 164 0.92 0 63 0.92 0 63 0.92 0 53 0.92 0 44 0.92 0 15 3 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 40 1 0 0 --- --- 12 3 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L L LTP LT R L L LTP LTP 0 8.0 3.0 0.0 20.0 3.5 1.5 15.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 72.0 Sec 16.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 161 0.000 0.347 23.3 C * Lpro 201 0.039 0.111 L 0.193 13.6 B T 528 0.159 0.278 T 0.574 26.8 C R 850 0.016 0.528 R 0.029 8.2 A WB Lper 220 0.000 0.347 29.9 C Lpro 201 0.016 0.111 L 0.067 11.8 B * T 528 0.197 0.278 T 0.710 31.3 C NB Lper 271 0.000 0.250 19.7 B * Lpro 376 0.105 0.208 L 0.294 12.0 B * T 343 0.094 0.181 T 0.519 27.3 C R 291 0.016 0.181 R 0.086 24.6 C SB Lper 196 0.000 0.250 19.6 B Lpro 376 0.038 0.208 L 0.119 11.3 B TR 323 0.052 0.181 TR 0.288 25.7 C Intersection: Delay = 23.8sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.56 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.44SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 346 NETSIM Summary Results 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinAM Hour Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd 2015 AM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 3 9.5 0.0 T 5 / 7 12.3 0.0 R 0 / 1 22.1 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 15.3 0.0 T 6 / 7 9.9 0.0 All 10.0 0.0 NB L 2 / 5 10.6 0.0 T 3 / 4 14.0 0.0 R 1 / 3 17.4 0.0 All 13.3 0.0 SB L 0 / 2 15.1 0.0 TR 2 / 3 13.9 0.0 All 14.1 0.0 Intersect. 12.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 64 279 38 26 345 175 164 63 63 53 44 1 8 03 1 8 03 2 19 24 2 19 24 3 15 03 3 15 03 3 15 03 4 12 24 4 12 24 347 HCM Analysis Summary 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinPM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd 2015 PM Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 130 0.94 0 523 0.94 0 264 0.94 0 159 0.94 0 422 0.94 0 0 0.90 2 191 0.94 0 153 0.94 0 42 0.94 0 127 0.94 0 270 0.94 0 73 0.94 0 135 5 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 20 3 0 0 --- --- 25 2 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L L R LTP LT R L L LTP LTP 0 7.0 3.0 0.0 27.0 3.5 1.5 8.0 3.0 0.0 18.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 76.0 Sec 16.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB Lper 197 0.000 0.421 26.5 C Lpro 166 0.076 0.092 L 0.380 14.8 B * T 675 0.293 0.355 T 0.824 33.3 C R 804 0.085 0.500 R 0.170 10.8 B WB Lper 115 0.011 0.421 25.1 C * Lpro 166 0.092 0.092 L 0.601 23.1 C T 675 0.236 0.355 T 0.665 25.8 C NB Lper 133 0.029 0.303 21.3 C * Lpro 190 0.105 0.105 L 0.628 19.4 B T 450 0.086 0.237 T 0.362 24.4 C R 592 0.014 0.368 R 0.039 15.4 B SB Lper 281 0.000 0.303 28.7 C Lpro 190 0.075 0.105 L 0.287 14.8 B * TR 440 0.182 0.237 TR 0.768 34.3 C Intersection: Delay = 25.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.85 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.67SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 348 NETSIM Summary Results 2015 Traffic with SiteR MarvinPM Hour Kagy Blvd/Willson Ave12/06/2013Case: Kagy 3rd 2015 PM App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 7 5.1 0.0 T 8 / 10 12.5 0.0 R 2 / 4 16.3 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 WB L 2 / 5 6.3 0.0 T 7 / 10 11.3 0.0 All 10.5 0.0 NB L 3 / 6 7.1 0.0 T 2 / 4 16.1 0.0 R 1 / 1 12.8 0.0 All 11.8 0.0 SB L 2 / 4 9.2 0.0 TR 5 / 8 11.4 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 Intersect. 11.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 130 523 264 159 422 191 153 42 127 270 73 1 7 03 1 7 03 1 7 03 2 26 24 2 26 24 3 8 03 3 8 03 3 8 03 4 17 24 4 17 24 349 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period AM Hour Intersection S 3rd Ave & Arnold St Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2015 Projections Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Arnold Street North/South Street: S 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)10 275 5 5 58 34 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)11 323 5 5 68 39 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)44 5 5 5 5 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)51 5 5 5 5 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)11 5 21 61 C (m) (veh/h)1497 1243 596 524 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.12 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.39 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 7.9 11.3 12.8 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)----11.3 12.8 Approach LOS ----B B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/16/2013 5:10 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/16/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k26F8.tmp 350 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/8/2013 Analysis Time Period PM Hour Intersection S 3rd Ave & Arnold St Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2015 Projection Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest TIS East/West Street: Arnold Street North/South Street: S 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 196 5 10 520 45 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 217 5 11 577 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)29 5 5 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)32 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h)5 11 15 42 C (m) (veh/h)965 1359 354 288 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.15 95% queue length 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.50 Control Delay (s/veh)8.7 7.7 15.6 19.6 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)----15.6 19.6 Approach LOS ----C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/16/2013 5:12 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/16/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k1626.tmp 351 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/13/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak AM Intersection Campus Crest 7 S 11th Avenue Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2015 Projection Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest Development East/West Street: Campus Crest Access North/South Street: S 11th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)20 1 16 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 28 1 22 7 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)2 81 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 2 0 115 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)22 117 C (m) (veh/h)1597 1050 v/c 0.01 0.11 95% queue length 0.04 0.38 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 8.9 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----8.9 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/16/2013 5:14 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/16/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kA2CB.tmp 352 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Date Performed 12/13/2013 Analysis Time Period Peak PM Intersection Campus Crest 7 S 11th Avenue Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Analysis Year 2015 Projection Plus Site Project Description Campus Crest Development East/West Street: Campus Crest Access North/South Street: S 11th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)10 2 75 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 14 2 107 28 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 63 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 1 0 90 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%)0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)107 91 C (m) (veh/h)1615 1063 v/c 0.07 0.09 95% queue length 0.21 0.28 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 8.7 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----8.7 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 12/16/2013 5:16 PM Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control 12/16/2013file:///C:/Users/Bob/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k6510.tmp 353 APPENDIX B COMPARATIVE TRIP GENERATION STUDY 354 3268XenwoodAvenueSouth z St.LouisPark,MN55416z 952Ͳ378Ͳ5017 z www.SpackConsulting.com Technical Memorandum From:MikeSpack,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,LindsaydeLeeuw Date:April12,2012 Re:TripGenerationStudy–PrivateStudentHousingApartments ArecentspikeinnewconstructionsurroundingtheUniversityofMinnesotaledtoaninterestin determininghowtripsgeneratedbystudenthousingapartmentsvaryfromtripsgeneratedbyageneric apartmentbuilding(asdefinedbyITE’sTripGeneration,8thEditionCode220).Thisreportprovidestrip generationdataforsixstudenthousingapartmentbuildings.Weekdaydaily,a.m.,andp.m.peakhour tripgenerationratesareprovided.InadditontoprovidingtripgenerationratesperDwellingUnit(asin TripGeneration),tripgenerationdataisalsoprovidedbasedonnumberofbedroomsandnumberof parkingstalls. Overall,itwasfoundstudenthousingapartmentsgenerateapproximatelyathirdtheamountoftraffic comparedtoasimilarlysized,genericapartmentbuilding.UsingITE’sguidelineofpreparingfulltraffic impactstudiesonlyifadevelopmentwillgeneratemorethan100peakhourtrips,astudenthousing apartmentcomplexwouldneedtohave416dwellingunitstotriggertheneedforafulltrafficimpact study. Methodology DatawascollectedonThursday,March29,2012(whileschoolwasinfullsession)atsixtypicalstudentͲ housingapartmentbuildingsneartheUniversityofMinnesota–TwinCitiesusingCOUNTcamvideo recordingsystems.Eachbuildingisspecificallydesignatedforstudentsbythepropertymanagersbut nonearedirectlyassociatedwiththeuniversity.Therangeoftotalapartmentunitsis44to253,with anaverageof118,andtheapartmenttypesvaryfromstudiostofourͲbedroomunits.Additionally,all thebuildingsobservedhaveparkingwiththenumberofstallsrangingfrom40to135,withanaverage of57stalls. Theparkinglotforeachstudenthousingapartmentbuildingwasrecordedfor24hoursonaweekday (multiplecameraswereusedforparkinglotswithmorethanoneentranceorexit).Thevideoswere watchedathighspeedswiththePCͲTAScountingsoftwareandthevehiclesinandoutweretalliedin 15Ͳminuteintervals. Findings Statisticsanddataplotsforeachtripgenerationperiodstudiedareattached.Asummaryofthe studenthousingaveragetripgenerationratesisshowninTable1alongsidethetripgenerationrates forApartmentsfromtheInstituteofTransportationEngineers’TripGeneration,8thEdition(ITECode 220). 355 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Dwelling Units On a:Weekday Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:117.67 Directional Distribution:50%Entering 50%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Dwelling Units Average Rate Standard Deviation 2.82 0.88 Range of Rates 1.64-3.93 T = 2.0656x + 69.443 R² = 0.82486 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Dwelling Units Data Plot 356 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:117.67 Directional Distribution:39%Entering 61%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Dwelling Units Average Rate Standard Deviation 0.13 0.04 Range of Rates 0.08-0.19 T = 0.094x + 3.4391 R² = 0.82038 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Dwelling Units Data Plot 357 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:117.67 Directional Distribution:54%Entering 46%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Dwelling Units Average Rate Standard Deviation 0.24 0.09 Range of Rates 0.13-0.38 T = 0.0723x + 15.991 R² = 0.40032 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Dwelling Units Data Plot 358 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Bedrooms On a:Weekday Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:147.67 Directional Distribution:50%Entering 50%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Bedrooms Average Rate Standard Deviation 1.42 0.43 Range of Rates 0.96-2.00 T = 1.6998x - 44.41 R² = 0.55935 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Bedrooms Data Plot 359 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Bedrooms On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:147.67 Directional Distribution:43%Entering 57%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Bedrooms Average Rate Standard Deviation 0.07 0.02 Range of Rates 0.04-0.09 T = 0.0786x - 1.9297 R² = 0.53969 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Bedrooms Data Plot 360 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Bedrooms On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:147.67 Directional Distribution:53%Entering 47%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Bedrooms Average Rate Standard Deviation 0.13 0.05 Range of Rates 0.11-0.20 T = 0.0723x + 15.991 R² = 0.40032 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Bedrooms Data Plot 361 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Parking Stalls On a:Weekday Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:56.50 Directional Distribution:50%Entering 50%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Parking Stalls Average Rate Standard Deviation 2.82 0.33 Range of Rates 2.36-3.08 T = 2.305x + 36.15 R² = 0.918 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Parking Stalls Data Plot 362 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Parking Stalls On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:56.50 Directional Distribution:47%Entering 53%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Parking Stalls Average Rate Standard Deviation 0.13 0.02 Range of Rates 0.11-0.15 T = 0.1073x + 1.6528 R² = 0.93361 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 50 100 150 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Parking Stalls Data Plot 363 Student Housing Apartment Building Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Number of Parking Stalls On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies:6 Average Number of Units:56.50 Directional Distribution:54%Entering 46%Exiting Trip Generation per Number of Parking Stalls Average Rate Standard Deviation 0.27 0.12 Range of Rates 0.20-0.45 T = 0.0723x + 15.991 R² = 0.40032 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 50 100 150 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends x = Number of Parking Stalls Data Plot 364 APPENDIX C TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS 365 Travel Time Paths Travel Time Delay NB T Arnold/3rd 0 Existing New Link Difference Arnold to Kagy 64 Arnold/3rd to Kagy W 11th AM 158 174.4 16.4 NB L Kagy/3rd 11 Kagy W 11th to Arnold/3rd PM 145.1 192.8 47.7 3rd to 11th 62 Arnold/3rd to 11th N Kagy AM 158.7 192.8 34.1 WB T 11th/Kagy 21 11th N Kagy to Arnold/3rd PM 168.2 185.6 17.4 Total = 158 EB T 11th/Kagy 8.6 11th to 3rd 62 EB R Kagy/3rd 10.5 Kagy to Arnold 64 SB T 3rd/Arnold 0 Total = 145.1 NB T Arnold/3rd 0 Arnold to Kagy 64 NB L Kagy/3rd 11 3rd to 11th 62 WB R 11th/Kagy 21.7 Total = 158.7 SB L 11th/Kagy 31.7 11th to 3rd 62 EB R Kagy/3rd 10.5 Kagy to Arnold 64 SB T 3rd/Arnold 0 Total = 168.2 NB L Arnold/3rd 7.4 Arnold to 11th 146 NB L 11th/Kagy 21 Total = 174.4 EB R 11th/Kagy 27.8 11th to Arnold 146 EB R Arnold/3rd 19 Total = 192.8 NB L Arnold/3rd 7.4 Arnold to 11th 146 NB T 11th/Kagy 21 Total = 174.4 SB T 11th/Kagy 20.6 11th to Arnold 146 EB R Arnold/3rd 19 Total = 185.6 Arnold/3rd to Kagy W 11th AM Kagy W 11th to Arnold/3rd PM Path 1 Existing 11th N Kagy to Arnold/3rd PM Kagy W 11th to Arnold/3rd PM Arnold/3rd to 11th N Kagy AM 11th N Kagy to Arnold/3rd PM Arnold/3rd to 11th N Kagy AM Path 2 New Link Arnold/3rd to Kagy W 11th AM 366 367 368 369 370