HomeMy WebLinkAboutI1 Story Mill
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Story Mill Center Informal #I-06030
MEETING DATE: Monday, December 11, 2006 at 6:00 PM.
BACKGROUND: Blue Sky Development has made application for an informal review.
The project is a complex mixed use infill and redevelopment of approximately 90 acres in the
northeast quadrant of Bozeman. The project is on the east of Rouse/Bridger Drive and is bounded
on the south by Bryant Street and the edge of the Story Hills on the east. There is an in-holding of
land owned by other parties who are participating in some aspects of the proposal but not the final
development. Due to the complexity of the project, the applicant’s representatives have requested
additional time to make their presentation to the Board/Commission.
The Story Mill area is an eclectic mix of uses with a long history of development. The Story
Mill was the largest industrial employer in early Bozeman history and remained an active mill into
the late 1960’s. The mill property has been used for a variety of things since the milling ended but its
full potential has not been utilized. Lack of municipal sewer has been a long standing limitation on
the intensity of uses possible at the site. Municipal services can be extended to serve the entire
property. Other uses in the area include the stockyards and associated slaughterhouse, now out of
use, abandoned rail lines, residences, and a variety of industrial uses to the northwest.
The proposed project will require many steps to review. The area is currently designated as
industrial, business park, residential, and suburban residential on Figure 6-2 of the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan. The proposal requests changes to these designations to primarily residential with
some commercial areas. The Planning Board and City Commission recently approved an
amendment to remove a neighborhood commercial node north of Bridger Drive which had not
developed and was not wanted by the land owner. A portion of this proposal would replace that
node within the Story Mill Center Project. The applicant has requested a community commercial
designation on the existing mill buildings. Staff has suggested this as a best fit for the existing scale
of the buildings and the proposed uses. The project will also require annexation of portions of land,
zoning changes, subdivision review, and PUD review.
The application depicts a blend of different housing types, substantial open spaces, and
intensive development in some areas of the site. Lower intensity areas transition to existing adjacent
residential development and are interspersed with existing wetlands on the site. Many portions of the
project area have previously been developed and some of that development will be changed by this
project. Comments have been received from various advisory boards which are attached.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Several substantive changes to planning and zoning in the area will be
required for this project.
Is the Commission favorably inclined to consider the amendment to the growth policy
depicted in the application? Amendment criteria are in Chapter 2, page 2-7, of the Bozeman 2020
plan.
Report compiled on February 17, 2006
Does the proposal appear to be an overall benefit to the City as a whole?
Assuming the land use designations were made consistent with the proposed development,
does the proposed development appear to be in accordance with the principles contained in the
growth policy, especially Chapter 6?
Does it appear possible to satisfy the zone map amendment criteria? Amendment criteria are
in Chapter 18.70, page 70-1, of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission consider the informal application and offer
comment and direction.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The development, if carried forward, will require significant infrastructure
investments. These will be the primary responsibility of the development group. Services to future
residents will generate expenses and taxes will generate additional revenue.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have any questions
prior to the public meeting.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
November 20, 2006
Mr. Glen Monighetti
Blue Sky Development
6730 Tawny Brown Lane
Bozeman, MT 59718
Dear Mr. Monighetti
Thank you for presenting the City's Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) with a
preliminary review of Blue Sky Development's affordable housing plans for the Story Mill
project. As requested by Blue Sky Development representatives, this letter recaps the
items discussed at that November 8, 2006 meeting.
Since Story Mill project is in the pre-development stage the housing plan presented was
conceptual. Therefore, the CAHAB's comments were general and no specific
recommendations were given. The participants agreed that housing plan developed at
this time may be subject to change if the City adopts new housing ordinances. Since
Blue Sky Development had established a working relationship with the HRDC's
affordable homeownership program the consensus was that they continue to work with
that program in designing their housing plan.
Blue Sky Development related their efforts to date in assisting the Bridger View Trailer
Court residents with relocation. The housing plan gives preference to Bridger View
Trailer Court residents for the affordable housing units. However, it was recognized that
the trailer court residents would need to relocate before the Story Mill project built
affordable housing. Blue Sky Development had several options to financially assist
residents with relocation costs. The CAHAB requested future updates on the success of
assisting the trailer court residents into replacement housing.
Blue Sky Development asked for the CAHAB's opinion on a privately financed lease-to-
purchase program. The CAHAB was generally in favor but without specifics as to
housing prices, financing, and income levels to be served, no recommendations could
be made. The CAHAB suggested that Blue Sky Development review the Bozeman
Deaconess Hospital's proposed housing plan as a format for the type of information the
CAHAB would need in order to make specific comments on Blue Sky Development's
affordable housing plan.
The CAHAB appreciates being included in the early affordable housing development
plan stages and looks forward to seeing more specifics on the Story Mill project.
Sincerely,
Brian LaMeres
CAHAB Chair
(Informal Review Application – Prepared 12/08/03; revised 9/20/04)
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
APPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
1. Name of Project/Development:
2. Property Owner Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
3. Applicant Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
4. Legal Description:
5. Street Address:
6. Project Description:
7. Zoning Designation(s): 8. Current Land Use(s):
9. Informal Advice and Direction From? Development Review Committee Design Review Board
Wetlands Review Board City Commission1 (check all that apply)
Bozeman Planning Board Bozeman Zoning Commission
I understand that the advice and direction received from the requested review body is advisory only.
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
1City Commission review is at the discretion of the Mayor and City Manager, per Commission Resolution No. 3509.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 1 OF 11
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION:
Blue Sky Development, Inc. (BSD) is proposing a major subdivision and
preliminary PUD plan for 89.696 acres located in the vicinity of 450 Hillside
Lane (note that addresses vary across the entire project area). Additional
property in the vicinity of the Stockyard(s) totals approximately 16.887
acres. Note that per the concept plan section of this application,
planning and zoning related work may be proposed on these properties.
The resulting total planning and zoning related project area is
approximately 106.583 acres.
This document and the associated applications, checklists, and figures are
collectively a complete submittal package requesting informal advice
and direction from the City of Bozeman.
The proposed subdivision project utilizes an established mix of zoning
designations including B-1(Neighborhood Business District), B-2
(Community Business District), M-1 (Light Industrial), R-2 (Residential
Medium Density District) and R-4 (Residential High Density District) on
property legally described in the following part(s) to this document.
2.0 PROPERTIES AFFECTED:
The legal descriptions of the twelve (12) tracts to be immediately affected
by the proposed project are as follows:
1. Tract 2B of C.O.S. 2207B according to C.O.S. 2547 located in the
Southeast ¼ of Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 6 East and the
Northeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M.,
Gallatin County, Montana. Total area of this tract is 10.295 acres.
2. Tract 23A of C.O.S. 1471 according to C.O.S. 2547 located in the
Southeast ¼ of Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 6 East and the
Northeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M.,
Gallatin County, Montana. Total area of this tract is 2.267 acres.
3. Subject Tract C.O.S. Film 23, Page 1625A according to C.O.S. 2547
located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6
East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. Total area of this tract is
13.522 acres.
4. Tract 17 Northeast Annexation according to C.O.S. 2547 located in
the Northeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East,
P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. Total area of this tract is 16.522
acres.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 2 OF 11
5. Tract A of the Industrial Properties Subdivision in the Northeast ¼ of
Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County,
Montana. The total area of this tract is 5.177 acres.
6. Tract 1T of COS 1877A according to C.O.S. 2547 located in the
Northwest ¼ of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, and the
Southwest ¼ of Section 32 Township 1 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M.,
Gallatin County, Montana. The total area of this tract is 14.231
acres.
7. Tract 1 of C.O.S. 2503 according to C.O.S. 2547 located in the
Northwest ¼ of Section 5 and the Northeast ¼ of Section 6,
Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana.
The total area of this tract is 5.682 acres.
8. Tract A of C.O.S. 2505 according to C.O.S. 2547 located in the
Northwest ¼ of Section 5 and the Northeast ¼ of Section 6,
Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana.
The total area of this tract is 1.707 acres.
9. Tract 1 of C.O.S. 1985 according to C.O.S. 2547 located in the
Southwest ¼ of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M.,
Gallatin County, Montana. The total area of this tract is 1.604 acres.
10. Bridger View Mobile Home Court plat per Film 9, Page 1202 located
in the Southeast ¼ of Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 6 East,
P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. The total area of this tract is
8.025 acres.
11. Bridger View Mobile Home Court No. 2 plat per Film 15, Page 681
located in the Southeast ¼ of Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 6
East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. The total area of this tract
is 9.928 acres.
12. Tract K of C.O.S. 1346 located in the Southeast ¼ of Section 31,
Township 1 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana.
The total area of this tract is 0.736 acres.
Additionally, there are five (5) tracts owned by Wake-Up, Inc. totaling
16.887 acres that are planned to be impacted by planning and zoning
related submittals. These tracts are more fully described as follows:
1. Tract 18 of the Northeast Annexation according to C.O.S. 1147
located in the Northwest ¼ of Section 5 and the Northeast ¼ of
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 3 OF 11
Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County,
Montana. The total area of this tract is 14.099 acres.
2. The subject tract of DOC. # 2197610 (abandoned RR R.O.W.)
located in the Northwest ¼ of Section 5 and the Northeast ¼ of
Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County,
Montana. The total area of this tract is 0.60 acres.
3. Parcel II, DOC. #2197608 located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 6,
Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana.
The total area of this tract is 0.255 acres.
4. Parcel I, DOC. #2197608 located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 6,
Township 2 South, Range 6 East and the Southeast ¼ of Section 31,
Township 1 South, Range 6 P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. The
total area of this tract is 0.306 acres.
5. Tract 20 of the Northeast Annexation located in the Southeast ¼ of
Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 6 P.M.M., Gallatin County,
Montana. The total area of this tract is 1.0 acres.
3.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION (GENERAL):
The plan for a neighborhood commercial core surrounded and in close
proximity to a diverse mixture of new and existing residential uses and a
pedestrian friendly design plan would likely encourage walking and
biking. Additional parks, trails, community gardens, and common use
areas could be designed into future developments as being more
compatible with a residential neighborhood than an industrial site. These
afford additional recreational amenities to the area that would provide
exercise and stress-relief that would be considered complimentary to
promoting good health.
The existing Story Mill buildings will be rehabilitated to occupancy
conditions in accordance with current building code standards. These
buildings in their current state are failing structurally, prone to fire, and
riddled with environmental hazards such as dead pigeon carcasses,
pigeon excrement, lead-based paint, and asbestos. The cost to improve
these structures exceeds the cost of constructing new buildings of
equivalent size and use. In order for these structures to be improved and
environmentally cleaned for occupancy, they need to be a part of an
economically viable development program. The rehabilitation of these
structures could be considered an improvement to the health and
general welfare of the community by ridding it of potentially hazardous
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 4 OF 11
site conditions and promoting ADA related site accessibility
improvements.
The existing Story Mill site and surrounding areas have a unique sense of
place that certainly offers many arguments for a peculiar suitability of the
property for the proposed particular uses. The strongest arguments
supporting this statement are that the 2020 plan supports the concept of
“centers” of commercial activity, a “sense of place”, and the
strengthening of the “historic core of Bozeman”. The existing historic
structures comprising the Story Mill are significant to our community and
offer a dramatic sense of place that is already considered by some as
being the center of the area. The development or re-development of this
existing site as neighborhood makes sense and is consistent with goals
supported by the 2020 plan.
Existing streets and roads, riparian corridors, and the topographical
limitations of the Story Hills naturally address compatibility with adjacent
areas. The Story Mill buildings currently exist and are intended to remain
the focal point of future development as the neighborhood center further
addresses compatibility of uses.
The industrial lands to the south and east of the project limits are currently
being used for industrial purposes consistent with the zoning regulations.
These areas offer the potential for jobs within walking distance of the Story
Mill and surrounding properties. This offers the opportunity of a livable
neighborhood community that is supportive of non-vehicular traffic trips to
work, to shop for groceries, etc.
The riparian corridors through the site are natural locations for parks and
open space that would not otherwise be required of future industrial users.
Portions of these properties are located within the existing entryway
corridor and Northern-Pacific Story Mill Historic districts, where viewsheds,
transition of uses, and historical significance on site architecture shall work
in conjunction with one another to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding areas.
We believe that the proposed PUD strengthens our City’s vision for the
future by enabling a project to move forward that meets virtually every
goal, objective, and policy set by our community as defined by the
Growth Policy. From improving on the characteristics that our community
has said makes this a desirable place to live to lessening the things that
would make this a less desirable place to live, the proposed project would
enable the vision of a neighborhood center and redevelopment of
several of the most historic structures remaining in the City today.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 5 OF 11
The existing Story Mill site once made an excellent industrial property well
suited for a grain elevator and flour mill due to it’s proximity to the railroad
and an abundant supply of water (from Bridger Creek) to power the
milling facilities. The railroad is now gone and the mill has not been in
operation for decades. The development of these properties would help
to preserve the community character and historical connection to the
community by once again making the Story Mill an economically viable
resource within the community and open these historic spaces to the
general public.
This is a mixed-use infill development project that would promote walk-
able neighborhoods, mass-transit use, brownfield redevelopment, and
jobs-housing balances while discouraging sprawl. The proposed PUD
would offer the community a diversity of uses, an open community, and a
significant environmental preservation opportunity.
4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES:
Multiple traffic impact studies (TIS) have been prepared or are in the
process of being prepared for the proposed Story Mill Neighborhood
development project. Copies of two (2) of the studies that have been
prepared are included with this application package. The first study is an
Existing Conditions Traffic Report. The second study is a Full Build-Out
scenario report assuming completion of the entire development.
Additional studies that are in progress include individual studies for each
planned phase of the Story Mill Neighborhood and an analysis of the
impact that an Oak Street connection with East Main Street and/or Rouse
Avenue would have on the transportation network serving the Northeast
side of Bozeman. Please note that three main access points to/from the
Story Mill Neighborhood are onto Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive. This
corridor is currently being planned for major improvements to include
three (3) and five (5) lanes, signalized intersections, etc.
We (the design team) are working with the Montana Department of
Transportation and their engineering consultant, HKM Engineering, to
address impacts that the Story Mill Neighborhood might have on the
planned Rouse Avenue Reconstruction project and also to model the
Oak Street Connection Overpass. This work, which is currently in process, is
planned to provide a comprehensive and coordinated study of traffic
flow through the area.
In addition to contacting and meeting with the various property owners in
the area that could be impacted by an Oak Street Connector, members
of the design team have been in contact with representatives of
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 6 OF 11
Montana Rail Link and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. They have requested
that we provide them with written documentation that the City of
Bozeman is involved from the start on such a proposal. We were informed
that a private developer cannot apply for a new public crossing. The
process needs to be initiated by the local municipality.
At this time, our plan is to continue studying the Oak Street Connector via
an overpass. While we believe this (the Oak Street Connector) to be
feasible and benefiting to many landowners along the I-90 corridor from
East Main Street to Rouse Avenue, we do not believe that the connector
is necessary or essential to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed
Story Mill Neighborhood (SMN). The following list outlines significant
findings from the TIS work completed to date with respect to SMN:
1. The areas around the Story Mill are served by an extensive
transportation network. The area is accessed by several arterial
and collector roadways, trails, and bike routes. The current plans to
reconstruct Rouse Avenue (a state highway) will affect the
transportation system in the area and should resolve most of the
existing and projected future traffic problems along the Rouse
Avenue corridor.
This reconstruction will likely include a modified two-lane cross-
section with bike lanes in some areas and the installation of traffic
signals at Oak Street and Griffin Drive. A five-lane section may be
constructed between Tamarack Street and Bond Street if feasible.
Any required mitigation measures for the Story Mill Center will need
to be coordinated through HKM and MDT.
2. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update
contains recommendations for bike paths, transit routes, street
classifications road standards, and future improvements plans in this
area. All of these proposed changes to the transportation network
will affect the Story Mill area and will need to be accounted for
when considering any development or proposed changes of land
use in that portion of Bozeman.
Upgrades to the extensive road network should provide sufficient
capacity for significant development in this area. No unsolvable
transportation issues are foreseen at this time.
3. At full build-out the proposed development would produce 860 AM
peak hour trips, 1,386 PM peak hour trips, and 12,206 daily trips.
4. Traffic is expected to distribute itself as follows:
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 7 OF 11
• 55% to/from the south on Rouse Avenue,
• 25% to/from the west on Griffin Road,
• 8% to/from the east on Bridger Canyon Road,
• 3% to/from the north on Story Mill Road, and
• 9% to/from the south on Story Mill Road.
5. Overall traffic volumes within the area will increase with the
proposed Story Mill Center, but no roadways would require
significant additional modifications. Traffic volumes along Griffin
Drive will increase by 2,500 VPD, but the overall volume on the
roadway will be less than 10,000 VPD, which is well within the limits of
a two-lane roadway. Traffic volumes along Rouse Avenue will
increase to 17,000 VPD, but the proposed three- or five- lane
configuration proposed by HKM for this section of roadway will
provide sufficient capacity for safe operations. The traffic volume
increase on Bridger Drive will be minimal.
6. It is likely that 9% of the traffic from the proposed development site
may be funneled down L Street and Wallace Avenue to reach the
eastern portions of Main Street. This would increase the total traffic
volumes along Wallace Avenue by 1,000 VPD. Wallace Avenue is
designated as a “local street” and is not intended to carry large
amounts of traffic.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update
indicates that local urban streets should carry 3,000 VPD or less.
According to data collected by the City of Bozeman, Wallace
Avenue currently carries 4,300 VPD just north of Main Street.
However, traffic volumes near the signalized intersection at Main
Street are not a good representation of the traffic volumes over
most of Wallace Avenue.
ATS conducted a 24-hour hose count on Wallace Avenue in
October 2006 to more accurately determine the current traffic
volumes in this area. The traffic count data indicated that the
roadway currently carries 1,900 VPD north of Fridley Street (half-way
between Main Street and Front Street). With the estimated 1,000
VPD additional traffic from the Story Mill Center development,
Wallace Avenue will carry 2,900 VPD for most of its length. This
number is in line with the 3,000 VPD recommend limit for local
streets.
7. If traffic issues along Wallace Avenue become a problem for area
residents it would be possible to decrease traffic volumes and
speeds on the roadway by incorporating traffic calming measures.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 8 OF 11
These traffic calming measures could include strategically placed
STOP signs, curb bulbs, traffic circles, or other measures. None of
these measures are recommended at this time, but traffic volumes
and speed along Wallace Avenue should be monitored through
the development of the Story Mill Center and appropriate traffic
calming measures should be installed if warranted.
8. The Story Mill Center will affect the traffic conditions at the
intersections along Griffin Drive. However, most of the major
intersections along this corridor are already signalized or will be
signalized shortly as part of other projects going on in this area. The
Story Mill Development will require the addition of two signalized
intersections in this area and variety of turn lanes to help maintain
the flow of traffic.
5.0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
As InteResources Planning, Inc. (IPI) is currently compiling a Cultural
Resource Inventory (CRI) report for the greater Story Mill Area. Upon the
completion of the CRI, the design team will work with IPI and Derek Strahn
to complete a Historic Preservation Impact Assessment (HPIA) Report,
which will strictly focus on the historic Story Mill site, as located within the
currently designated boundaries of the Northern-Pacific Story Mill Historic
District. As presently envisioned the HPIA report will include the following:
1. A brief overview of the historic built environment, the local historical
context in which it developed over time, and the formation of the
Northern Pacific-Story Mill Historic District;
2. A description of the existing condition as well as the
historic/architectural significance and integrity of surviving historic
(but not archeological) resources on the historic Story Mill site;
3. An identification and description of significant surviving character-
defining features of the Story Mill site and each individual structure;
4. Recommendations for updates or amendments to the Northern
Pacific-Story Mill Historic District, including a re-evaluation of the
contributing or non-contributing status of all previously-identified
historic resources, as well as an identification previously unidentified
historic resources that could potentially be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places;
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 9 OF 11
5. A written summary description of the proposed and/or probable
short term and long term modifications to the historic Story Mill site,
as provided by Gobuild, Inc. and their associates;
6. An analysis regarding the extent to which proposed modern
developments directly associated with the Story Mill Neighborhood
Center P.U.D. could negatively impact previously identified or
unidentified historic resources on the Story Mill site, as well as within
the Northern Pacific-Story Mill Historic District generally;
7. An assessment as to the manners in which the proposed modern
developments could jeopardize the chances of receiving federal
and state historic rehabilitation tax credits, and/or affect the
existing National Register eligibility;
8. Suggested recommendations for possible mitigations of any
identified adverse impacts to recognized or unidentified historic
resources caused by the Story Mill Neighborhood Center P.U.D.; and
9. Maps, available historic photographs, current photographs, and
other relevant information.
6.0 WETLANDS UPDATE:
The project design team is working with Confluence Consulting to address
wetlands related issues that might impact the proposed Story Mill
Neighborhood Project. The team has authored and submitted to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) a Report of Findings of Wetlands and
Water of the U.S. for the Story, Turner and Deibele Properties. In addition,
we are planning an amended report including the Henderson, Turner II
and Sebena properties. This complete report will include:
1. Descriptions of methodologies for wetland delineation and
determinations based on the 1987 USACE field manual to wetland
delineation,
2. Complete descriptions of vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils for
each wetland site,
3. Completed standard USACE delineation date sheets describing the
above features,
4. Photo documentation of all wetland and waters on the U.S. Sites,
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 10 OF 11
5. completes maps of all wetlands and waters of the U.S. based on
wetland boundaries surveyed by a licensed surveyor,
6. Function and values assessments and scores for each wetland type
based on Montana Department of Transportation wetland
assessment methods.
In addition to the reporting, our design team is planning provide USACE
404, and Gallatin County conservation district 310 permitting services for
any unavoidable impacts to wetlands and water of the U.S. A
component of this will be the design, construction, and monitoring of
compensatory mitigation wetland for the project. We cannot, however,
complete the design and permitting related work to address wetlands
impact until we have defined a final site plan for the proposed project.
The primary areas of concern regarding wetlands lie between the East
Gallatin River and Bozeman Creek watersheds south of Griffin Drive.
Virtually all of the wetlands within the project area are jurisdictional and
are, therefore, governed by USACE. Any wetlands impact to non-
jurisdictional wetlands will be addressed through the City’s wetlands
review board.
Our current plan is to design around the existing wetlands to the best of
our abilities. We do, however, plan to improve the function and value of
virtually all the wetlands. This will involve work in and around the wetlands,
which will involve significant design, permitting, and mitigation.
7.0 LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN:
The Story Mill Neighborhood development project is intended to be one
of the first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified
Neighborhood Developments in the country. We are vying for one of ten
(10) pilot projects nationwide meeting the new requirements of LEED for
Neighborhood Developments (ND). Kath Williams, Ed. D., president of the
World Green Building Council is a member of the project design team and
is spearheading LEED for the Story Mill Neighborhood.
LEED certification for the project will require the design team to address
the key issues of 1) sustainable sites; 2) water efficiency; 3) energy and
atmosphere; 4) materials and resources; 5) indoor environmental quality;
and 6) innovation and design process. Some significant aspects of these
issues that are relative to the Story Mill project site are outlined as follows:
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
GBD ARCHITECTS, HYALITE ENGINEERS, ET AL. PAGE 11 OF 11
1. Channeling development to urban areas with existing infrastructure,
protecting greenfields, and preserving habitat and natural
resources;
2. Rehabilitation of damaged sites where development is
complicated by environmental contamination, reducing pressure
on undeveloped land;
3. Conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to
provide habitat and promote biodiversity;
4. Provide a high ratio of open space to development footprint to
promote biodiversity;
5. Managing stormwater runoff on-site and reducing impervious cover;
6. Water Use Reduction and Wastewater Generation Reduction;
7. Promoting energy efficient project components;
8. Efficient use of materials and resources including utilization of local
products; and
9. Community connectivity with pedestrian access to basic services.
Virtually every aspect of LEED is supported by the core concepts of the
2020 plan from “centers” to “urban density”. This is an exciting project
that we hope will change the way that development is being done in
Bozeman and Gallatin County. We will provide additional LEED updates
as the project continues to development within the planning stages.
October 2006
“We have lived by the assumption that
what was good for us would be good for the
World.
We have been wrong.
We must change our lives, so that it will be
possible to live by the contrary assumption that
what is good for the World will be good for us....
and that requires that we make the effort to
know the World and learn what is good for it.
We must learn to cooperate in its processes,
and to yield to its limits.”
Wendell Berry, Recollected Essays CONCEPT MASTER PLAN for the STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD BOZEMAN, MONTANA0
Brewery Blocks, Portland Renovated Existing Silos Built Into Hill, Not on Top
October 2006THE STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERIn 1883, Story Mill was the largest fl our mill in Montana and the fi rst business in
Bozeman serviced by the railroad. Over the years it became a local landmark and now, one hundred and twenty three years later, an urban mixed-use re-development plan will revive the historic red brick structures and tall concrete grain elevators. The plan will enhance its connection to Bozeman and infuse the energy of a community built as a model of sustainable design.
Expose Structure Rural Shapes with a Contemporary Flair
1
CONCEPT MASTER PLAN for
the STORY MILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.storymillcenter.com
GOBUILD, INC
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.gobuild.com
GBDARCHITECTS Incorporated
PORTLAND, OREGON
www.gbdarchitects.com
HYALITE ENGINEERS, PLLC
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.hyaliteeng.com
COMMA-Q ARCHITECTURE, Inc.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.commaq.com
KATH WILLIAMS
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.williams@theglobal.net
October 2006
DEVELOPMENT MISSION
BUILD A SUSTAINABLE, MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT OFFERS MULTI-GENERATIONAL LIVING, WORKING AND PLAYING PLACES,
WHILE RESPECTING THE CHARACTER OF BOZEMAN AND THE HISTORIC
STORY MILL DISTRICT.
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
1. RENOVATE, REBUILD AND RESTORE THE STORY MILL BUILDINGS, SILOS AND
WAREHOUSES INTO A VIBRANT, ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
2. DEVELOP STREET, PATH AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS TO THE EXISTING AMENITIES, SERVICES AND DESTINATIONS OF THE REGION. ENCOURAGE ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS TO THESE SUCH AS PUBLIC TRANSIT, BIKE, CARPOOL
AND HYBRID VEHICLES.
3. EMBRACE THE UNITED STATES GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL’S LEED RATING SYSTEM FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (ND), WHILE STRIVING TO
BECOME A MODEL FOR SMART, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE COUNTRY.
4. RESPECT AND PROTECT THE EXISTING CREEKS AND WETLANDS ON SITE WHILE PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THEIR ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY.
5. DEVELOP A DIVERSITY OF URBAN HOUSING TYPES RANGING FROM WORK-
FORCE TO MARKET RATE, WITH AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 10-12 UNITS PER ACRE.
6. CREATIVELY CONNECT ADJACENT AREAS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS. PLACE PRIORITY ON HIDING OR BUFFERING PARKING AREAS.
7. DISCOVER ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE SITE
AND CREATE WAYS TO ENHANCE AND PROTECT THEM.
8. INCORPORATE CULTURAL TIES TO PAST HISTORY THROUGH STORY TELLING, PUBLIC ART AND THE SCHOOLS.
9. REDUCE DEMAND ON ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSUMPTION.
2
DEVELOPMENT MISSION and GOALS
0 9 Y A W
H
G
I
H
M A I N S T R E E T
K A G Y B O U L E V A R DE U N E V A H T 9 1TRO
PRIA
NITALLAGGALLATIN PARK
82.96 ACRES
MONTANA STATE
UNIVERSITY
BOGART PARK6.8 ACRES
DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN
October 2006
3
BOZEMAN VICINITYEUNEVA HCRUHCFUTURE BUS ROUTE
E V I R D R E G D I R BHTAP ENIL LIAR DLOHTAP
TEERTS
’L‘ E U N E V A E C A L L A WSTORY MILL
PETE’S HILL40 ACRES
LINDLEY PARK12.6 ACRES
THE VILLAGE
DOWNTOWN
Embrace a Variety of.......................................
October 2006
Rural Forms with Contemporary FlavorRow house Entries facing the Street & Rear-Court Garage Access.......................Material Textures
RESPONSE
BELOW IS A LIST OF IDEAS AND DESIRES FROM THE NEIGHBORS OF THE STORY MILL CENTER. THE SITE PLAN INDICATES AREAS THAT THESE IDEAS COULD OCCUR.
1. AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE OPTIONS
2. ACCOMODATE THOSE NOT ABLE OR
WILLING MOVE3. MAINTAIN RURAL “SMALL TOWN” FEEL4. WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT5. BUFFERING WITH LANDSCAPE
6. MAINTAIN STRONG ASPECTS THAT ALREADY
EXIST
7. PROVIDE HOMES WITH PRIVATE YARDS
8. STRONG PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
9. STRONG AND USEABLE TRAIL SYSTEM10. ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS11. MIXING USES12. KEEP AND ENHANCE BARN
13. ALTERNATIVES TO PARKING LOTS
14. STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITIES
15. MASS TRANSIT
16. NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS POINTS17. LIFESTYLE CHOICES - NOT MANAGE PEOPLE’S LIVES18. PARKING STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT BLOCK
VIEWS
19. RECREATION CENTER (ICE RINK, CLIMBING
GYM, POOL)
20. EQUESTRAIN CENTER
21. COFFEE SHOP22. GROCERY STORE23. NATIVE VEGETATION24. PRESERVE THE NIGHT SKY-SENSITIVE BUILDING
LIGHTING
25. INCORPORATE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS
26. LIVE-WORK SPACES FOR LIGHT
MANUFACTURING27. RE-USE AND REPLACE EXISTING DISPLACED VEGETATION28. PUBLIC AMPHITHEATER
29. ADA ENFORCING AND FAIR HOUSING
ACT REGULATIONS
30. STRUCTURED PARKING TO SUPPORT EXISTING
BUILDINGS31. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DESIGN PROCESS
4
EXISTING ISTE CONDITION
Embrace the United States Green Building Council LEED for Neighborhood Design Guidelines
Smart
Growth
Combine housing,
retail, and commu-
nity services.
Build denser, com-
pact districts to sup-
port business and
transit.
Create a walkable
neighborhood.
Preserve open
space & natural
beauty.
Adaptive reuse of
buildings.
Provide a range of
housing options.
Encourage commu-
nity collaboration.
Energy
Generate energy on
site.
Investigate ground
source heat, biomass,
renewable energy op-
tions.
Cluster buildings to re-
duce heating loads.
Site for wind protection
and sun access.
Plan services and uses
to reduce the need for
driving.
Water
Minimize impervious
surfaces to protect wa-
ter quality of runoff.
Use “green infrastruc-
tures” as
amenity space
Protect existing high-
quality wetlands.
Use bioswales to retain
and treat stormwater.
October 2006
Climate HeatingDaysCoolingHoursInsolationBtu/day/sfMDRMean
Daily Range
DryBulb/Wet
Bulb
Annual Precipitation
Inches
Gallons/day/
1000 sf roof
Bozeman 9,876 407 1,266 32 87-60 19.3 33.0
Portland 4,417 2,100 1,130 21 86-67 47.8 81.6
Anchorage10,825 35 793 15 68-58 18.4 31.4
Phoenix 1,444 54,404 1,371 27 107-71 8.5 14.5
Ecology
Inventory and evalu-
ate environmental
assets.
Protect sensitive and
high-value areas.
Use infrastructure sys-tems that minimize
ecological impacts.
Green
Buildings
Minimize site distur-
bance during con-
struction.
Design for maximum
water and energy ef-
fi ciently.
Minimize waste from
construction.
Use local and recy-
cled materials.
Protect indoor air
quality with low-emit-
ting products.
Design for daylight
and views
Open Space
Provide a range of
open spaces.
Design for units to
have protected out-
door space.
Allow for safe play areas with natural and
built amenities.
Build
Community
Centers & Plazas
Community Gardens
Shared Open Space
Public Art
Accessible Greens Street
Vendors
5
SUSTAINABLE COMPONENTSThe region’s climate suggests renewable energy
sources for the high heating demand....
Purchased from the local utility or generated on-site.
Embrace a variety of exterior Materials and Textures. Simple, Contemporary forms that express the building’s Structure.
Existing
SUBURBAN RES.
1.604 Acres
RESIDENTIAL
20.25 Acres
INDUSTRIAL
70.498 Acres
BUSINESS PARK
14.231 Acres
M-1
48.413 Acres
RMH
19.992 Acres
B-P
14.231 Acres
UNZONED (NOT IN CITY)
23.947 Acres - TOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT AREA = 106.583 Acres
October 2006
Encourage Color.
6
PLANNING (LAND USE) DIAGRAMSProposed
ZONING DIAGRAMSNEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL
7.349Acres - TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
85.776 Acres
INDUSTRIAL
5.177 Acres
SUBURBAN RES.
1.604 Acres
COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL
3.471 Acres
PARKS, OPEN
SPACE & REC.
3.206 Acres
B-1
7.349 Acres
R-4
82.703 Acres
M-1
5.177 Acres
R-2
3.073 Acres
B-2
3.471 Acres
R-S
3.206 Acres
October 2006
7
CONCEPT MASTER PLAN
A Proposed Modern Development Embracing the Surviving Features of the Northern Pacifi c-Story Mill Historic District.Urban Density.
October 2006
8
PHASING PLANHistoric Mill Buildings To Remain The Most Prominent Structures In The Neighborhood.
Combine Bike and Pedestrian Trails Multi-lingual Signage Snow Removal & Holding to Re-Charge Aquifer via Bio-SwalesAllow On-Street Parking
60’ THE BOULEVARD
BOARDWALKS & BRIDGES OVER WETLANDS & CREEKS
FESTIVAL STREET at THE STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
October 2006
THE RESIDENTIAL CONNECTOR 45’
THE RESIDENTIAL LANE 50’
STORY MILL ROAD 65’
Allow Pedestrians & Bikes through Wetlands and Riparian areas with Boardwalks & Bridges
9
STREET, PARK, TRAIL and PATH SECTIONS PLAN
October 2006
10
PARCEL A SITE PLAN
October 2006PARCEL B SITE PLAN11
October 2006
12
PARCEL C SITE PLAN
October 2006
13
PARCEL D SITE PLAN
Embrace and Encourage Six (6) Basic Land Use and Planning Related Goals of the U.D.O. Outlined As follows: 1) Centers; 2) Neighborhoods; 3) Sense of Place; 4) Integration by Action; 5) Natural Amenities; and 6) Urban
October 2006
14
TIMELINEDensity.
“Great times make great friends. Great
friends make great neighborhoods. Great
neighborhoods make great cities. Great cit-
ies make great nations and great nations
make a great WORLD.”
Paraphrased from the Neck Label of
Bert Grant’s Celtic Ale
EXISTING CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC REPORT
for the Story Mill Neighborhood
OCTOBER 2006
GOBUILD, Inc.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.gobuild.com
GBDARCHITECTS Inc.
PORTLAND, OREGON
www.gbdarchitects.com
HYALITE ENGINEERS, PLLC (with ABELIN TRAFFIC SERVICES)
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.hyaliteeng.com
COMMA-Q ARCHITECTURE, Inc.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.commaq.com
KATH WILLIAMS, Ed.D.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
williams@theglobal.net
www.storymillcenter.com
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
i
Table of Contents
A. Executive Summary....................................................................................1
B. General Project Description........................................................................2
C. Existing Conditions .....................................................................................5
Adjacent Roadways .........................................................................5
Railroad Facilities...........................................................................16
Existing Trails ................................................................................17
Existing Transit System .................................................................18
D. Traffic Data Collection ..............................................................................18
E. Additional Data.........................................................................................19
F. Crash Data ...............................................................................................20
G. Level of Service........................................................................................21
H. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update.......................22
I. Additional Considerations.........................................................................24
J. Existing Conditions Summary...................................................................24
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map.........................................................................................3
Figure 2 – Project Boundaries and Traffic Counts................................................4
List of Tables
Table 1 – Historic Traffic Volumes........................................................................20
Table 2 – Existing 2006 Level of Service Summary – Weekday Traffic ...............21
Table 3 – Existing 2006 Level of Service Summary – Winter Traffic
List of Photos
Photo 1 – Rouse Avenue at Mendenhall Street ...................................................6
Photo 2 – Rouse Avenue South of Tamarack Street............................................7
Photo 3 – Griffin Drive East of Rouse Avenue at Bozeman Creek.......................8
Photo 4 – Griffin Drive at the East Gallatin River Bridge......................................9
Photo 5 – Rouse Avenue & Griffin Drive Intersection...........................................10
Photo 6 – Rouse Avenue (Bridger Canyon Road) & Story Mill Road...................11
Photo 7 – I-90 Overpass at L Street .....................................................................12
Photo 8 – Rouse Avenue & Oak Street Intersection ............................................13
Photo 9 –Cedar Street East of L Street................................................................14
Photo 10 – Rouse Avenue & Bryant Street Intersection.......................................15
Photo 11 – I-90 Overpass and Railroad Crossing at Rouse Avenue....................16
Photo 12 – Montana Rail Link Crossing at L Street..............................................17
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
ii
Appendix
A Traffic Data
B Level of Service
C Supplemental Data
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update
Figure 6-4 Bike Route Network
Figure 6-5 Bozeman Area Trail Network
Figure 7-1 Bobcat Transit System Route Map
Figure 7-2 Proposed Transit Routes
Figure 11-2 Recommended Collector Street Standards
Figure 11-3 Recommended Minor Arterial Street Standards
Figure 11-4 Recommended Principal Arterial Street Standards
Figure 11-7 Existing Major Street Network and Future Right-of-Way Corridor
Needs
HKM Scoping Meeting Handouts
HKM Scoping Meeting Minutes
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 1 of 24
Existing Conditions Traffic Report
Story Mill Center
Bozeman, Montana
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Story Mill Center development is located in the northeastern portion of Bozeman,
Montana in the vicinity of Story Mill Road and Griffin Drive. The development property consists of
an undeveloped portion of land adjacent to the Bozeman Stockyard and Story Mill.
The transportation network around the Story Mill area is dominated by Rouse Avenue. The
Environmental Assessment currently underway by HKM is attempting to address the existing and
future needs of the corridor and plan for the corridor’s ultimate reconstruction. HKM determined
that five travel lanes would be necessary to obtain a LOS C throughout the project area. Due to the
impacts five lanes of traffic would cause a three-lane cross-section is more probable for most of the
corridor. This reconstruction will likely include a modified two-lane cross-section with turning
lanes at intersection, on-street parking, bike lanes, boulevards, and sidewalks. It is possible that a
five-lane section could be feasible between Tamarack Street and Bond Street. Traffic signals and
pedestrian crossings will be installed at the intersections of Rouse Avenue/Oak Street and Rouse
Avenue/Griffin Drive.
In 2001 Robert Peccia & Associates completed the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan,
2001 Update (BATP). The document identified traffic and transportation needs of the City of
Bozeman and portions of the Gallatin Valley. The Transportation Plan also projected traffic
volumes within the area through 2020. Information from the plan which is significant to the Story
Mill area includes recommended road and intersection improvements, trails and bike paths, transit
routes, trucks routes, street networks, and roadway cross-section standards. The Transportation Plan
is scheduled for another update in 2007.
In addition to the Rouse Avenue improvements, other recommendations contained in the BATP will
impact the Story Mill Development and the surrounding areas. The BATP recommends upgrading
Cedar Street, Story Mill Road, and L Street to a two-lane urban collector standard. The urban 2-lane
collector street standard includes a right-of-way width of 90-feet with a 47-foot paved surface, curb
and gutter, bike lanes, on-street parking where necessary, boulevards, and sidewalks. Although
these road improvements do impact adjacent land they are necessary to provide sufficient roadway
capacity and meet the needs of pedestrians and bicycles.
The connection of Cedar Street to Rouse Avenue at Oak Street recommended in the BATP would
provide an alternative route to Main Street. This connection would also link the Oak Street bicycle
route with the Story Mill Spur Trail, the East Gallatin Recreation area, and the Story Hills.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 2 of 24
A Cedar Street connection with East Main Street near Haggerty Lane was also discussed as part of
the BATP planning effort, but was not included as a recommended improvement. This connection
would allow traffic to bypass Rouse Avenue and portions of East Main Street. However, creating
this connection would require a significant engineering effort to overcome a major grade change
near East Main Street and would have obstacles with the railroad property. Although this
connection was not ultimately included in the BATP it would have benefits to the overall
transportation network in the area and could be discussed further with the City of Bozeman
Transportation Coordinating Committee.
This document is intended to assemble the existing traffic information for the Story Mill area. Once
the site plans for the Story Mill Center have been completed this document will be updated to
include a detailed evaluation of the proposed development plan, a trip generation analysis, the effect
of the new traffic on local streets, possible alternatives, and recommended traffic improvements.
The final traffic impact study will be provided to the HKM team to be incorporated into the Rouse
Avenue reconstruction project.
B. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This study analyzes and documents the existing conditions and traffic issues in and around the
proposed Story Mill Center development, which is located in a mostly undeveloped area adjacent to
the Bozeman Stockyard and the old Story Mill. The Story Mill Center development would
refurbish the Story Mill to include commercial areas, office space, and a possible parking garage
while maintaining the historic significance of the existing structures to the extent possible.
Surrounding areas will include park(s), residential areas, and office and retail areas. Approximately
90 acres of land is planned for redevelopment
Traffic count data was obtained for the adjacent roadways to the development. These roadways
include Rouse Avenue (which becomes Bridger Drive north of Story Mill Road), Griffin Drive and
Story Mill Road (which run through the development site), L Street, Bryant Street, and 0ak Street.
See Figure 1 for a vicinity map of the proposed development and Figure 2 for a map of the Story
Mill Center development boundaries and existing traffic volume data.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 3 of 24
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 4 of 24
Figure 2- Project Boundaries and Traffic Counts
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 5 of 24
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Story Mill consists of a variety of grain silos and mill buildings constructed in the 1880s. A
railroad spur was constructed to the mill in the early 1900s to transport flour to Milwaukee and the
North Pacific railroads. After operations at the mill ceased in the 1950’s, the railroad spur was
converted to a pedestrian and bicycle trail called the “Story Mill Spur Trail”.
The proposed project site is located adjacent to other residential and commercial properties, as well
as a stockyard and the Stockyard Cafe at the intersection of Story Mill Road and Griffin Drive. The
new Boys and Girls Club is located to the west of the property along Rouse Avenue.
Primary access to the site is provided via Rouse Avenue and L Street to the south, Bridger Drive
(Bridger Canyon Road) and Story Mill Road to the north, and Griffin Drive and Oak Street to the
West. To the south of the development are Interstate 90 and the Montana Rail Link alignment and
rail yard along Cedar Street.
Adjacent Roadways
Rouse Avenue is the easternmost state maintained principal arterial route through Bozeman.
The roadway begins south of Main Street and extends north through Bozeman to become
Bridger Drive and then Bridger Canyon Road (MT 86). The roadway has a two-lane asphalt
concrete cross-section for most of its length, passes through the Hawthorne School Zone, and a
variety of residential and commercial areas, and is a designated bike route. The southern end of
the road extending to Lamme Street has an urban cross-section with parking on both sides (see
Photo 1). The section north of Lamme Street has a semi-rural cross-section with wide
shoulders. The intersections with Main Street, Mendenhall Street, and Tamarack Street are
signalized (See Photos 1 and 2). The roadway has a posted speed limit of 25 MPH from Main
Street to Griffin Drive including a posted school zone from Main Street to Lamme Street. The
speed limit increases to 35 MPH past Griffin Drive and increases again to 45 MPH past Story
Mill road. Traffic data collected by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) in 2004
indicates that the roadway currently carries 8,900 VPD south of Griffin Drive.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) listed the reconstruction
of the Rouse Avenue corridor among its major recommended improvements as a 3-lane urban
principal arterial. The purpose of a principal arterial is to provide for the movement of traffic on
the main line with less priority to access from adjacent properties. Pedestrian crossing safety
enhancements are required with the addition of a third lane according to the BATP. Principal
arterial streets typically carry between 10,000 and 35,000 VPD. See Appendix C for the
recommended principal arterial street standards (Figure 11-4). HKM is currently in the process
of creating an environmental assessment for the project and planning the future road
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 6 of 24
configuration. This project is described in detail in Section E of this report.
Photo 1 - Rouse Avenue at Mendenhall Street
Photo 1 shows the urban cross section at the southern end of Rouse Avenue as it passes next
to Hawthorne School.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 7 of 24
Photo 2 - Rouse Avenue South of Tamarack Street
This photo shows the signalized intersection of Rouse Avenue at Tamarack Street.
Griffin Drive is an east/west minor arterial route which passes through the northern edge of
Bozeman. The roadway has a 28-foot wide two-lane asphalt rural cross-section and passes
through an area primarily comprised of light industrial areas. The road has an urban collector
designation and a 35 MPH speed limit. Traffic data collected by the MDT in 2004 indicates that
the roadway currently carries 6,100 VPD west of Rouse Avenue. East of Rouse Avenue the road
cross section narrows to 20-feet and the road passes through an area of marsh and wetlands with
bridge crossings over Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River (see Photos 3 & 4). The
roadway carries 300 VPD east of Rouse Avenue and ends at the Story Mill.
The recommended street standard for a two-lane minor arterial from the BATP is a 100-foot
right-of-way width including a forty-nine (49) foot road surface comprised of two 11.5-foot
lanes, designated bike lanes, on-street parking, curbs and gutters, boulevards, and sidewalks.
See Appendix C for the recommended minor arterial street standards (Figure 11-3).
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 8 of 24
Griffin Drive east of Rouse Avenue is considered a local route, but would act more like a
collector route if this area is developed. The recommended cross-section for a two-lane urban
collector includes a 90-foot right-of-way width with a forty-seven (47) foot roadway surface
comprised of two 10.5-foot lanes, designated bike lanes, on-street parking, boulevards and
sidewalks. See Appendix C for the recommended collector street standards (Figure 11-2).
Photo 3 – Griffin Drive East of Rouse Avenue at Bozeman Creek
This photo shows the narrow cross-section of Griffin Drive east of Rouse Avenue at Bozeman
Creek.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 9 of 24
Photo 4- Griffin Drive at the East Gallatin River Bridge
This photo shows the bridge over the East Gallatin River near the Story Mill site.
Photo 5 – Rouse Avenue & Griffin Drive Intersection
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 10 of 24
Photo 5 shows the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Griffin Drive. This intersection is
currently un-signalized and functions at LOS F in the PM Peak hours.
Story Mill Road is a north/south route that passes next to the Story Mill and crosses Rouse
Avenue (Bridger Canyon Road) approximately 700 feet to the north of the Story Mill. Story
Mill Road continues north of Rouse Avenue (Bridger Canyon Road) and into the county (see
Photo 6). Story Mill Road forks into Big Gulch Road and L Street south of the Story Mill. Big
Gulch Road is a private road which heads east into the Story Hills. L Street extends to the south
beneath Interstate 90 and over the Montana Rail Link railroad tracks before connecting with
North Wallace Avenue. Story Mill Road has a 30-foot wide gravel surface and passes through a
variety of rural residential areas. Traffic counts collected by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) in
May 2006 indicate that the roadway currently carries 500 VPD south of Rouse Avenue.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) recommends that Story
Mill Road be developed to urban collector standards. This would include a 90-foot right-of-way
width with a forty-seven (47) foot surface comprised of two 10.5-foot lanes, designated bike
lanes, on-street parking, boulevards and sidewalks. See Appendix C for the recommended
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 11 of 24
collector street standards (Figure 11-2). The BATP also recommends boulevard trails and a
designated truck route along Story Mill Road. Boulevard trails are paved pathways 8-10 feet
wide that run parallel a route. These trails may have landscaping on both sides.
Photo 6 – Rouse Avenue (Bridger Canyon Road) & Story Mill Road
Photo 2 shows the unpaved portion of Story Mill Road east of Rouse Avenue. The Story Mill
Trail is located adjacent to Story Mill Road to the southeast of the Story Mill Buildings.
L Street is a 26-foot wide gravel road that connects Story Mill Road with the industrial areas
along Wallace Avenue. The roadway passes over a small bridge at the East Gallatin River,
underneath Interstate 90 (see Photo 7), then over the Montana Rail Link railroad tracks. Traffic
data collected by ATS in May 2006 indicates that the roadway carries 400 VPD. L Street was
paved by the City from Wallace Avenue to the Oak Street extension in the summer of 2006.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) recommends that L
Street be developed to urban collector standards. This would include a 90-foot right-of-way
width with a forty-seven (47) foot surface comprised of two 10.5-foot lanes, designated bike
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 12 of 24
lanes, on-street parking, boulevards and sidewalks. See Appendix C for the recommended
collector street standards (Figure 11-2). The BATP also recommends bike boulevard trails and
a designated truck route along L Street. Boulevard trails are paved pathways 8-10 feet wide that
run parallel a route. These trails may have landscaping on both sides.
Photo 7 - I-90 Overpass at L Street
Photo 7 shows the unpaved surface of L Street and the I-90 Bridge. The City of Bozeman
paved this portion L Street to the extension of Oak Street in 2006.
Oak Street is an east/west principal arterial route that passes through the northern portion of
Bozeman. The roadway currently has a two-lane cross-section between North 7th Avenue and
Rouse Avenue with additional turn lanes at intersections and bike lanes. The roadway currently
ends at Rouse Avenue and carries 5,500 VPD (see Photo 8). Oak Street has a posted speed
limit of 35 MPH.
The street standards for urban principal arterial routes include a 120 foot right-of-way width
with an eighty-one (81) foot roadway surface comprised of 12-foot lanes, a thirty-six (36) foot
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 13 of 24
turning lane/raised median, 10-foot emergency parking/bike lanes, boulevards and sidewalks,
and street lighting. See Appendix C for the recommended principal arterial street standards
(Figure 11-4). The BATP also includes a proposed extension of Oak Street from Rouse Avenue
across the railroad tracks to the L Street/Cedar Street intersection as a collector route.
Photo 8 – Rouse Avenue & Oak Street Intersection
The intersection of Rouse Avenue and Oak Street is currently un-signalized and functions at
LOS F in the PM peak hour.
Cedar Street
Cedar Street is a dead-end gravel road just south of Interstate 90 that connects a small industrial
area to North Wallace Avenue (L Street) just north of the Montana Rail Link railroad tracks (see
Photo 9).
Photo 9 – Cedar Street East of L Street
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 14 of 24
This photo shows the gravel surface of Cedar Street east of L Street. The BATP recommends
improving Cedar Street to an urban collector standard.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) recommends that Cedar
Street be a designated collector route. This would include a 90-foot right-of-way width with a
forty-seven (47) foot surface comprised of two 10.5-foot lanes, designated bike lanes, on-street
parking, boulevards and sidewalks. See Appendix C for the recommended collector street
standards (Figure 11-2).
A Cedar Street connection with East Main Street near Haggerty Lane was also discussed as part
of the BATP planning effort but was not included as a recommended improvement. This
connection would allow traffic to bypass Rouse Avenue and portions of East Main Street.
However, creating this connection would require a significant engineering effort to overcome a
major grade change near East Main Street and would have obstacles with the railroad property.
Although this connection was not ultimately included in the BATP it would have benefits to the
overall transportation network in the area and could be discussed further with the City of
Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 15 of 24
Bryant Street is a local route which primarily accesses a small commercial/industrial area east
of Rouse Avenue. The roadway currently carries 300 VPD, is 36 feet wide, and has curb and
gutter but no sidewalks. The roadway ends 600 feet east of the Rouse Avenue intersection (see
Photo 10). No improvements or roadway extensions were recommended in the Greater
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) for Bryant Street or any of the other
streets in this area. The Story Mill Center project includes a property east of Bryant Street and a
future connection at this location is possible.
Photo 10 – Rouse Avenue & Bryant Street Intersection
This photo shows the intersection of Bryant Street and Rouse Avenue. Bryant Street has an
urban cross-section with curb and gutter and a paved width of 36 feet.
Interstate 90 is located just to the south of the Story Mill Center development site, but can not
be accessed in this area. The interstate crosses over Rouse Avenue between Bryant Street and
Oak Street and over L Street between Bohart Street and Cedar Street. The nearest interstate
interchanges are on North 7th Avenue ¾ mile to the west of Rouse Avenue and East Main Street
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 16 of 24
two miles to the east of Rouse Avenue. In this area the interstate carries 15,000 VPD.
Photo 11 - I-90 Overpass and Railroad Crossing at Rouse Avenue
Rouse Avenue passes underneath Interstate 90 and crosses the Montana Rail Link railroad
tracks in close proximity as shown in Photo 11.
Railroad Facilities
The Montana Rail link operates an active rail yard south of Interstate 90 along Cedar Street. The
rail lines cross Griffin Drive ½ mile west of Rouse Avenue, cross Rouse Avenue at the I-90
Bridge, and crosses L Street near the intersection with Wallace Avenue. All of these are at-
grade railroad crossings equipped with actuated gates and flashers. The grade crossing at L
Street is scheduled to receive a concrete surface when the street is paved. The rail yard provides
some freight services for Bozeman, but the main purpose for the yard is to attach helper units for
trains headed towards Bozeman Pass. The crossing at L Street experiences 28 train movements
per day. The Story Mill Spur, which is currently being used as a trail, is still controlled by
Montana Rail Link. The rail service plans to maintain its right of-way on the spur until the Story
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 17 of 24
Mill area is developed into a residential or commercial area.
Photo 12 - Montana Rail Link Crossing at L Street
The Montana Rail Link tracks cross L Street just north of Warren Street as shown in Photo 12.
This crossing is scheduled to receive a paved surface in along with the paving of L Street in
2006.
Existing Trails
The Story Mill Spur trail extends north from Wallace Street and follows the old Story Mill Spur
for nearly a mile to Story Mill Road. The trail includes a pedestrian bridge crossing over the
East Gallatin River directly adjacent to the abandoned railroad bridge crossing. The trail then
follows Story Mill Road north and crosses Bridger Canyon Road at a marked crosswalk and then
connects to the East Gallatin Connector Trail and the East Gallatin Recreation Area.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) shows existing and
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 18 of 24
proposed bike routes and trails through the Bozeman Area. Story Mill Road, L Street, and the
Oak Street extension include proposed bike lanes and a future trail corridor that extends past Big
Gulch Road into the Story Hills. See Appendix C for the recommended Bike Route Network
(Figure 6-4) and Bozeman Area Trail Network (Figure 6-5).
Existing Transit System
According to the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update (BATP) there are
eleven separate transit providers in the Bozeman Area. Of these the Bobcat Transit System,
originating in 1987, is the largest single transit provider. This system provides transit service for
Montana State University (MSU) students and does not operate on weekends, at night, during
semester breaks, or during the summer. The last stop along the Bobcat Transit system route on
Rouse is near the Bridger View Trailer Court between Story Mill Road and Griffin Drive. The
route turnaround is at the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Story Mill Road. See Appendix C
for the Bobcat Transit Route Map (Figure 7-1) and the proposed transit routes (Figure 7-2). The
recommended north side route proposed in the BATP would replace the Bobcat transit with a
public transit system that would accommodate more of the public’s needs by increasing
operation times, making the buses ADA accessible, and working with employers to develop
transit incentives for employees. The north side route is shown to turnaround at the intersection
of Story Mill Road and Bridger Canyon Drive.
D. Traffic Data Collection
Traffic count data was obtained for the adjacent roadways to the development. These roadways
include Rouse Avenue (which becomes Bridger Drive north of Griffin Drive), Griffin Drive and
Story Mill Road (which run through the development site), L Street, Bryant Street, and 0ak Street.
Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) collected peak-hour turning movement count data in May 2006 at the
critical intersections around the Story Mill site to supplement traffic data already available for the
area. These intersections included:
• Story Mill and Bridger Drive,
• Rouse Avenue and Oak Street,
• Rouse Avenue and Tamarack Lane,
• Rouse Avenue and Bryant Street.
Twenty-four-hour hose count data was also collected along Story Mill, Griffin Drive, L Street, and
Bryant Street. Average daily traffic volume information for the study area is shown on Figure 2.
See Appendix A for the hourly traffic volume information.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 19 of 24
E. Additional Data
Additional information for the area was obtained from the Bridger Bowl Base Area Development
Plan currently being prepared for this area and from the ongoing Rouse Avenue environmental
assessment currently underway by HKM.
The Bridger Bowl Partners Development at the base of the Bridger Bowl Ski Area is currently being
designed by Morrison Maierle. This development would ultimately include 500-600 residential and
lodging units with associated commercial operations. Although much of the traffic from this
development will be captured within the new base area and at the ski areas, a portion of the traffic
will utilize Bridger Canyon Road and Rouse Avenue to access Bozeman. As part of this traffic
study, winter weekday and weekend traffic counts were taken at the intersections of Rouse
Avenue/Griffin Drive and Rouse Avenue/Story Mill Road. The results and recommended mitigation
measures for this project are not currently available.
The Churn Creek developers submitted a preliminary plat to the City of Bozeman in January 2006.
This site is located north of Rouse Avenue on Story Mill Road near the city land fill. The
development would have included 300-500 residential units on 315 acres of land. Although the
preliminary plat did not receive approval from the Bozeman Planning Board, it is likely that this
project will be redesigned and submitted again for approval. It is not currently known what the final
configuration for this development will be. Regardless of the final design, this development will
affect traffic conditions along Rouse Avenue and Story Mill Road.
Two additional developments may be constructed south of the Story Mill Center development near
the end of Oak Street. The Kenyan Noble Properties and Simpkins developments are currently in
the conceptual planning phase. No specific land uses or designs have yet been developed, but it is
likely that Oak Street would be extended at least to L Street as part of these developments.
HKM is currently in the process of preparing the environmental planning document for the redesign
of Rouse Avenue between Main Street and Story Mill Road. The final design has not yet been set
but HKM has indicated that there will likely be three lanes of traffic (two through lanes and a center
left-turning lane) between Main Street and Story Mill Road with bike lanes on both sides. Due to
physical constraints along the southern end of the corridor the center left-turn lane and/or bike lanes
may need to be eliminated in some spots. The less restrictive right-of-way north of Bond Avenue to
Story Mill Road may allow the construction of a fully separated pedestrian and bicycle path along
this section. The traffic signals at Griffin Drive and Oak Street will be installed in 2007. The
reconstruction of the corridor will likely begin in 2010 and will be funded through a combination of
MDT and Federal sources.
The Rouse Avenue project is still in the early planning phases and no precise road plans have been
set yet. The ultimate design of the roadway will be based on information from traffic studies such as
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 20 of 24
this one and other proposed developments in this area.
Public scoping meetings were held by HKM and the Montana Department of Transportation on
December 7, 2005 and May 31, 2006. HKM determined that five travel lanes would be necessary to
obtain a LOS C throughout the project area. Because of the impacts five lanes of traffic would
cause, HKM decided three lanes is more probable. The reconstruction will likely include a modified
two-lane cross-section with a third turning lane, on-street parking, bike lanes, boulevards, and
sidewalks. A five-lane section may be constructed between Tamarack Street and Bond Street if
feasible. The reconstruction will also include the installation of traffic signals and pedestrian
crossings at the intersections of Rouse Avenue/Oak Street and Rouse Avenue/Griffin Drive.
Public comments voiced in both meetings include the request that Oak Street be extended to divert
traffic away from Rouse Avenue and that L Street, the Oak Street extension, and Wallace Avenue be
made into State highway routes. Concerns also arose that short term improvements, such as fixing
roadside hazards, should be made before the 2011 start of construction. Increasing speeds on Rouse
was also a common concern with widening the roadway. The public meeting flyers are included in
Appendix C along with meeting minutes taken by representatives of Hyalite Engineers at both
scoping meetings.
Historical Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume data was obtained from the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) for Rouse Avenue and Griffin Drive for traffic volumes through 2004. This
data indicated an annual average traffic growth rate in this area of 1%. These traffic volumes are
shown in Table 1. Data from 2001 Great Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update projects a 2%
annual growth rate for this area through the year 2020.
Table 1 – Historic Traffic Volumes
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Rouse Av, S of
I-90 bridge 10,510 9,630 9,070 9,280 8,930 9,900 10,740 9,970 10,400 8,870
Rouse Av, S of
Birdie Dr 4,790 4,610 4,280 4,690 4,860 5,470 5,430 5,410 5,720 5,080
Griffin Dr, E of
N 7th Avenue 6,400 7,860 7,690 8,750 8,130 7,350 7,450 8,960 8,000 8,750
Griffin Dr, W of
Rouse Avenue 5,740 7,020 6,720 8,990 7,280 6,490 6,430 6,970 6,440 6,130
F. Crash Data
ATS contacted the Montana Department of Transportation to collect crash statistics for Rouse
Avenue between Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road. Crash data for this roadway was obtained for
the last ten years and analyzed to determine the crash trends.
A total of 45 crashes have been reported along this section of roadway over the past ten years, most
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 21 of 24
of which (32) occurred at the Griffin Drive or Story Mill Road intersections. Twenty-six of the
crashes occurred at Griffin Drive and six occurred at Story Mill Road. One collision between a
vehicle and a bicycle was recorded at the Griffin Drive intersection.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices recommends that a traffic signal be erected at an
intersection if five or more crashes occur at an intersection over a 12 month time period (Warrant
#7). The only location with a high number of crashes is the intersection of Rouse Avenue and
Griffin Drive. This intersection experienced more than five crashes per year in both 1996 and 1999.
Since 2000 the crash rates at the intersection have fallen to only two per year.
Of the 32 accidents which occurred between Griffin Drive and Bridger Bowl over the last ten years,
16 (50%) occurred on wet, snow, or icy roads. A vast majority of the crashes (81%) were multi-
vehicle collisions. Thirteen of the crashes were right-angle collisions and 16 were rear-end
collisions. Sixteen of the accidents resulted in injuries.
G. Level of Service
Using the data collected for this project, ATS conducted a Level of Service (LOS) analysis at the
critical intersections in the vicinity of the Story Mill. This evaluation was conducted in accordance
with the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) - Special Report 209 and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) version 5.2. Intersections
are graded from A to F representing the average delay that a vehicle entering an intersection can
expect. Typically, a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak-hour conditions. The LOS
calculations are shown in Appendix B of this report.
Table 2 shows the existing 2006 AM and PM LOS and Table 3 shows the existing 2006 LOS for
peak winter weekday and weekend traffic conditions with skier traffic. Note that winter traffic
volumes are not currently available for Tamarack and Oak Street.
Table 2 – Existing 2006 Level of Service Summary – Weekday Traffic
AM PM
Intersection Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS
Bridger Drive & Story
Mill Road 12.6 B 14.6 B
Rouse & Griffin 21.7 C 98.7 F
Rouse & Bryant Street 14.5 B 23.1 C
Rouse & Oak Street* 29.9 D 113.5 F
Rouse & Tamarack 10.9 B 13.0 B
*Side Street LOS.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 22 of 24
Table 3 – Existing 2006 Level of Service Summary – Winter Traffic
AM PM
Intersection Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS
Weekdays
Bridger Drive & Story
Mill Road 16.0 C 18.1 C
Rouse & Griffin 23.0 C 104.2 F
Weekend Day
Bridger Drive & Story
Mill Road 14.4 C 14.9 B
Rouse & Griffin 63.4 F 25.2 D
*Side Street LOS.
Table 2 shows that under average weekday traffic conditions the Story Mill Road intersection and
the signalized intersection at Tamarack Street are both functioning well. The Griffin Drive and Oak
Street intersection are currently experiencing operational problems. Table 3 also shows the
operational problems at the Griffin Drive intersection under Peak winter weekday and weekend
traffic conditions (Bridger Bowl skier traffic).
A review of the traffic volumes at these intersections indicate that both the Griffin Drive and Oak
Street intersections both currently have sufficient traffic volumes to warrant the installation of a
traffic signal based on the peak-hour volumes warrants (warrant #3) as described in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
The problems at these two intersections have been identified in the HKM traffic study, but no
solutions have been finalized. It is likely that both of these intersections will be signalized as part of
the reconstruction process, but these signals may not be installed for 5-10 years. Another option for
the Griffin Drive intersection would be the installation of a modern roundabout. MDT is currently
required to study the installation of roundabouts to control traffic on all MDT routes. This location
would be appropriate for a modern roundabout. This possibility will be studied in detail by HKM.
H. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update
In 2001 Robert Peccia & Associates completed the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan,
2001 Update. The document identified traffic and transportation needs of the City of Bozeman and
portions of the Gallatin Valley. The Transportation Plan also projected traffic volumes within the
area through 2020. Information from the plan which is significant to the Story Mill area includes
recommended road and intersection improvements, trails and bike paths, transit routes, trucks routes,
street networks, and roadway cross-section standards. The Transportation Plan is scheduled for
another update in 2007.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 23 of 24
The Transportation Plan recommended several Transportation System Management (TSM)
improvements for the area around the Story Mill. These improvements included installing traffic
signals and making geometric modifications at the intersections of Rouse Avenue/Griffin Drive and
Rouse Avenue/Oak Street.
The major recommended improvements contained in the Transportation Plan include widening
Rouse Avenue to a three-lane urban arterial from Main Street to Story Mill Road, upgrading Cedar
Street to a two-lane urban collector, and connecting Cedar Street to Rouse Avenue. The work
currently underway by HKM is a result of the Rouse Avenue improvements recommendation.
Designated bike routes and trails were recommended for several roads within the area. The Plan
recommends creating bike lanes along Rouse Avenue between Main Street and Oak Street and a
separated bike path north of Oak Street. The plan also recommends bike lanes along Story Mill
Road and L Street. Bike Lanes are already included along Oak Street. The pedestrian path currently
proposed along Rouse Avenue could be moved to run along Griffin Drive into the Story Mill area to
link with the Story Mill Trail.
The Plan recommends maintaining Rouse Avenue, Oak Street, Story Mill Road, and L Street as
designated truck routes.
The Transportation Plan also includes recommended transit routes for the City of Bozeman.
Although the City does not yet have an operating year-round public transit system, plans are
underway to create a transit system based on the recommendations made in the Transportation Plan.
The transit routes recommended in the plan include a route along Rouse Avenue to Story Mill Road
and back along Griffin Drive. If the Story Mill Center creates a residential/commercial area near the
intersection of Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road, it is likely that the transit routes could be revised
to pass in front of the new development before connecting back with Rouse at Story Mill Road. The
Proposed Transit Routes Map (Figure 7-2) is included in Appendix C.
One of the most important aspects of the Transportation Plan was the map created to show the
Existing Major Street Network and Future Right-of-Way Corridor Needs (Figure 11-7) this map
shows the road classifications on the existing major street network and recommends classifications
of existing and future road connections. Of importance to the Story Mill area is the recommendation
that Story Mill Road be designated as a collector route. The Plan also recommends creating another
collector road by extending Oak Street across Rouse Avenue and connecting to Cedar Street. Figure
11-7 and the recommended urban collector route road standards (Figure 11-2) are shown included in
Appendix C.
During the preparation of the Transportation Plan the idea of extending Cedar Street south to
connect with East Main Street near Haggerty Lane was explored. This connection would create a
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Existing Conditions Traffic Report October 9, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 24 of 24
major transportation corridor connecting Oak Street with East Main Street. Although this idea was
not ultimately recommended in the transportation plan, it may be explored again in the future if
development pressures make the idea more feasible. However, it should be noted that physical
constraints due to the grades near East Main Street were a major factor in tabling the proposed road
connection.
I. Additional Considerations
The developers will need to work closely with HKM & MDT to ensure that any required roadway
improvements along Rouse Avenue can be completed prior the full build-out of the development.
The reconstruction of Rouse will not likely be completed until 2015 or later. This may require that
the developers supply some additional funding to help accelerate the design and construction process
in some places.
Interstate 90 passes close to the development site and it would be physically possible to create a new
interchange in this area. However, constructing a new interchange would also have some significant
hurtles to overcome. First, in order to receive approval from the Federal Highways Administration it
needs to be shown that a new interchange would serve a ‘regional need’ (airport, hospital, major
retail, or transportation hub, etc.). An interchange would not get approval if its primary benefit
would be to decrease traffic volumes on local streets. Secondly, an interchange requires
considerable space on both sides of a freeway. With the proximity of the rail yard in this area it
would be difficult to create a new interchange without affecting the rail yard operations.
J. Existing Conditions Summary
The areas around the Story Mill have an extensive transportation network. The area is accessed by
several arterial and collector roadways, trails, and bike routes. The current plans to reconstruct
Rouse Avenue will affect the transportation system in the area and should resolve most of the
existing and projected future traffic problems along the Rouse Avenue corridor. This reconstruction
will likely include a modified two-lane cross-section with bike lanes in some areas and the
installation of traffic signals at Oak Street and Griffin Drive. A five-lane section may be constructed
between Tamarack Street and Bond Street if feasible. Any required mitigation measures for the
Story Mill Center will need to be coordinated through HKM and MDT.
The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update contains recommendations for bike
paths, transit routes, street classifications road standards, and future improvements plans in this area.
All of these proposed changes to the transportation network will affect the Story Mill area and will
need to be accounted for when considering any development or proposed changes of land use in the
portion of Bozeman. Upgrades to the extensive road network should provide sufficient capacity for
significant development in this area. No unsolvable transportation issues are foreseen at this time.
90
90
90
90
WMain
WCollegeSt.
KagyBlvd.
StuckyRd.KagyBlvd.
OliveSt.
CurtissSt.
StorySt.
DickersonSt.
AldersonSt.
HarrisonSt.ClevelandSt.
GrantSt.
GarfieldSt.
LammeSt.
BabcockSt.WBabcockSt.
KochSt.
BaxterLane
DeadmansGulch
Hulbert
Oak
DurstonRd.
MendenhallSt.
VillardSt.
BeallSt.
BridgerCanyonRoad
GriffinDr.
TamarackSt.
DurstonRd.
Bozeman
MapNottoScale
N
LEGEND
ExistingBikeLane
ExistingBikePath
ProposedBikePath
ProposedBikeLane
ProposedBikeRoute
NOTES:
Thismapwasdevelopedwiththeassistanceofthe
BozemanBicycleAdvisoryBoard.
Thedecisionforplacementofon-streetbicyclelanesand
detachedsidewalksoracombineddetached
pedestrian/bicycletrailwillbemadeduringdesign.
Priorityshouldbegiventoensuringconsistencyalong
thelengthofacorridor.
MapNottoScale
N
Recreation
andParks
Legend
NOTES:
ThistrailsmapwasdevelopedbytheGallatin
CountyTrailsCommittee,theBozeman
RecreationandParksAdvisoryBoard,the
GallatinValleyLandTrust,andBozeman
planningstaff.
TheDecisionforplacementofon-street
bicyclelanesanddetachedsidewalksora
combineddetachedpedestrian/bicycletrailwill
bemadeduringdesign.Priorityshouldbe
giventoensuringconsistencyalongthelength
ofthecorridor.
90
90
90WMain
WCollegeSt.
KagyBlvd.
StuckyRd.KagyBlvd.
OliveSt.
CurtissSt.
StorySt.
DickersonSt.
AldersonSt.
HarrisonSt.
ClevelandSt.
GrantSt.
GarfieldSt.
LammeSt.
BabcockSt.WBabcockSt.
KochSt.
BaxterLane
Oak
DurstonRd.
MendenhallSt.
VillardSt.BeallSt.
BridgerCanyonDrive
GriffinDr.
TamarackSt.
DurstonRd.
191
MapNottoScale
N
BlueCommuterRoute
GoldCommuterRoute
ShuttleRoute
CityLimits
GoldCommuterRoutecontinues
to4Cornersandnorthon
JackrabbitLanetoBelgrade.
6
3
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
910
11
12
13
7
8
9
10
11 12
13
5 4
3
2
113
1211109
5
8
7
6
BLUECOMMUTERROUTESTOPS
1-KarstStage
2-StoryDistributing
3-BridgerViewPark
4-Peach&Montana
5-Willson&Lamme
6-Willson&Curtiss
7-Willson&College
8-Garfield&Montana
9-Rouse&Hoffman
10-RemingtonWay
11-College&GrantChamberlain
12-15th&GrantChamberlain
13-MSUSub
GOLDCOMMUTERROUTESTOPS
1-Belgrade(Lee&Dad’s)
2-FourCornersExxon
3-KingArthurTrailerPark
4-KountzTrailerPark
5-BobcatLodge
6-WesternDrive&Mendelhall
7-CoveredWagonTrailerPark
8-19th&Beall
9-Koch&23rd
10-Koch&19th
11-Koch&16th
12-Koch&12th
13-MSUSub
SHUTTLESTOPS
1-MSUSub
2-Willson&College
3-Babcock&Tracy(PostOffice)
4-Mendenhall&Black
5-Mendenhall&5th
6-NorthgateShoppingMall(IGA)
7-Durston&15th
8-Beall&15th
9-Gibson’s
10-MainMall(JCPennyEntrance)
11-Koch&23rd
12-Koch&19th
13-Willson&Curtiss
90
90
90WMain
WCollegeSt.
KagyBlvd.
StuckyRd.KagyBlvd.
OliveSt.
CurtissSt.
StorySt.
DickersonSt.
AldersonSt.
HarrisonSt.
ClevelandSt.
GrantSt.
GarfieldSt.
LammeSt.
BabcockSt.WBabcockSt.
KochSt.
BaxterLane
Oak
DurstonRd.
MendenhallSt.
VillardSt.BeallSt.
BridgerCanyonDrive
GriffinDr.
TamarackSt.
DurstonRd.
191
MapNottoScale
N
WMain
WCollegeSt.
KagyBlvd.
OliveSt.
CurtissSt.
StorySt.
DickersonSt.
AldersonSt.
HarrisonSt.
ClevelandSt.
GrantSt.
GarfieldSt.
LammeSt.
BabcockSt.WBabcockSt.
KochSt.
MendenhallSt.
VillardSt.BeallSt.
DurstonRd.
HighDensityCommercialCorridor
North-SideRoute
MainStreetShuttleRoute
South-SideRoute
GoldRoute
TargetResidentialAreasWithConcentrations
ofLowandMediumIncomeHousing
Note:TheValleyRoute,I-90CommuterRoute,and
SkiResortShuttleRoutesareNotShownonthefigure.
MSUSub
EastMainTransfer
Station(CMCProperty)
Mall
Transfer
Station
ToFourCorners
andBelgrade
.5’
.5’
.5’
.5’
1’
1’
1’
1’
CL
CL
CL
.5’
.5’.5’.5’
.5’
.5’.5’.5’
1’
1’
1’
1’
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
NotToScale
15’Boulevard
16.5’Boulevard
8’Boulevard
15’Boulevard
16.5’Boulevard
8’Boulevard
8’Parking
8’Parking
5’Bike
5’Bike
5’Bike
5’Bike
8’Parking
8’Parking
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk8’Boulevard8’Boulevard
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
5’Bike
5’Bike
5’Bike
5’Bike
10’DrivingLane
10’DrivingLane
10’DrivingLane
10’DrivingLane
14’TurningLane
RaisedMedian
12’DoubleLeftTurningLane
30’TurningLane/
RaisedMedian
1’CenterlineStripe
1’Stripe 1’Stripe
R/WRequirements=90’
2LaneOption
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/BoulevardBothSides
MaximumRoadSection-3Lanes
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/BoulevardBothSides
3LaneOption
Sidewalks/Bike/BoulevardBothSides-NoParking
3LaneOption
Sidewalks/Bike/BoulevardBothSides-NoParking
10’DrivingLane
10’DrivingLane
10’DrivingLane
10’DrivingLane
48’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
45’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
62’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
62’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
.5’1’
CL
.5’.5’.5’1’
10’Ped/BikeTrail 8’Parking 8’Parking 10’Ped/BikeTrail8’Boulevard8’Boulevard 10’DrivingLane 14’TurningLane
RaisedMedian
MaximumRoadSection-3Lanes
Sidewalks/Parking,Ped/Bike,BoulevardBothSides
10’DrivingLane
52’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
NOTES:
Pedestriancrossingsafetyenhancement
isrequiredforroadswiderthan2-lanes.
Corridorlightingisrequiredwherever
raisedmediansareused.
Gradeseparatedped/bikefacilitiesshould
beconsideredatmajorped/bikecrossings.
MinimumFeatures:
-TwoDrivingLanes
-Sidewalks-BothSides
-BikeLanes-BothSides-Boulevards-BothSides
-Parking-BothSides
(WhereParkingisProvided)
.5’
.5’
.5’
1’
1’
1’
CL
CL
.5’
.5’.5’.5’
.5’.5’.5’
1’
1’
1’
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
19’Boulevard
8.5’Boulevard
8.5’Boulevard
19’Boulevard
8.5’Boulevard
8.5’Boulevard
8’Parking
8’Parking
5’Bike
5’Bike
5’Bike
8’Parking
8’Parking
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
5’Sidewalk
5’Bike
5’Bike
5’Bike
11’DrivingLane
50’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
71’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
71’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
1’CenterlineStripe
11’DrivingLane 21’TurningLane/RaisedMedian
11’DrivingLane11’DrivingLane
R/WRequirements=100’
2LaneOption
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/BoulevardBothSides
3LanesOption
Sidewalks/Parking/Bike/BoulevardBothSides
MaximumRoadwaySection-5Lanes*
Sidewalks/Bike/BoulevardBothSides-NoParking
11’DrivingLane
11’DrivingLane
11’DrivingLane
*Itisnotlikelythat5-laneMinorArterialswillbeconstructed
intheforeseeablefuture.Thistypicalsectionispresented
toshowhowa5-lanefacilitywouldfitwithintheavailable
right-of-way.
15’TurningLane/RaisedMedian 11’DrivingLane
NotToScale
.5’.5’.5’1’
CL
.5’1’
10’Ped/BikeTrail 7.5’Boulevard 7.5’Boulevard 10’Ped/BikeTrail11’DrivingLane12’DrivingLane
MaximumRoadwaySection-5Lanes
/Sidewalks/PedBike,BoulevardBothSides-NoParking
11’DrivingLane15’TurningLane/
RaisedMedian 12’DrivingLane
63’BackofCurbtoBackofCurb
NOTES:
Pedestriancrossingsafetyenhancement
isrequiredforroadswiderthan2-lanes.
Corridorlightingisrequiredwherever
raisedmediansareused.
Gradeseparatedped/bikefacilitiesshould
beconsideredatmajorped/bikecrossings.
MinimumFeatures:
-TwoDrivingLanes
-Sidewalks-BothSides
-BikeLanes-BothSides
-Boulevards-BothSides
-Parking-BothSides
(WhereParkingisProvided)
90
90
90W Main
W College St.
Kagy Blvd.Kagy Blvd.
Stucky Rd.
Graf
Fowler Ln.Goldenstein Rd.Cottonwood Rd.Kagy Blvd.S 19thOlive St.
Curtiss St.
Story St.
Dickerson St.
Alderson St.S Willson Ave.S 8thN 7thHarrison St.
Cleveland St.
Grant St.
Garfield St.BlackE Main
Lamme St.
Babcock St.W Babcock St.Ferguson Rd.Fowler Ln.Valley Dr.Koch St.
Baxter Lane
Deadmans Gulch
Hulbert
Re
d
WingVal
l
ey Cent
erHidden Valley Rd.DavisOakN 19thDurston Rd.Cottonwood Rd.Mendenhall St.
Villard St.N Willson Ave.N Grand Ave.Beall St.N Rouse Ave.Bridger Canyon Drive
Griffin Dr.Story Mi
ll
Rd.Story Mill Rd.Manley Rd.M
cll
h
att
a
n
Tamarack St.
Durston Rd.N Rouse Ave.N BroadwayN Wallace Ave.Chur
ch Ave.Highland Bl
vd.
Ha
ggerty
Ln.Highland Blvd.S 3rdSourdough Rd.Painted Hills Rd.S 11thS 19thN 15th27th27th191
Map Not to Scale
N
NOTE: The potential future
right-of-way corridor locations
are not exact and should be
viewed as broad corridors.
Legend
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Future*
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
City Limits
NOTE:
Future links identified where no road currently
exists will be constructed as the surrounding
area develops.
*Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update(Bozeman Area)Figure 11-7Existing Major Street Networkand Future Right-Of-Way Corridor NeedsInterpretation of Map
This map presents the Recommended Major Street Network. It shows how
the street network should develop over time and is intended to be used as a
planning tool. It will assist in the evaluation of long-term traffic needs when
planning future developments. The route alignments shown are conceptual
in nature.
The development of these conceptual routes will take decades to
become reality, and will only become roads if traffic needs materialize as a
result of development in the area. Many of the existing roads identified as
arterial routes are currently functioning as collectors or local streets and will
be upgraded as traffic needs increase.
It is important to note that although this major street network is
recommended as part of the Transportation Plan, it does not reflect the
federally approved functional classification criteria.
The actual alignments may vary based on development patterns,
geographic features, and other issues unknown at this time. The
community planners will strive to design the roads to fit the character
of the landscape and minimize impacts on natural features such as
wetlands, mature trees, and riparian corridors.
Most of these routes are not recommended for construction at this
time.
ROUSE AVENUE – BOZEMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Frequently Asked Questions: What is the proposal for improvements along Rouse Avenue? The proposed project begins at the intersection of Main Street and Rouse Avenue and extends approximately 2.0 miles on Rouse Avenue to the intersection of Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road. The proposed project is intended to address congestion and safety concerns along the route. Alternatives to address these issues could range from doing nothing (No-Build), to widening the roadway to accommodate anticipated future traffic demand, turnbays at major intersections, a bike lane, sidewalks, ADA ramps, curb and gutter, signing, and pavement markings. Some additional right-of-way may be needed through the narrower sections to accommodate additional traffic lanes and a potential bike path. Utility relocations may also be necessary. What will the study examine? The study will examine existing traffic and safety concerns, and identify potential alternatives to address those concerns. Alternatives will be examined to determine their impacts on the surrounding built and natural environment. What process will be used to conduct the study? The study will follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations. This process will ensure a full and fair discussion of all potential social, economic, and environmental impacts before specific decisions are made on the corridor improvements. No decision has been made on this proposed project, and an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be developed to document the process and decisions made. How do I stay involved? Please fill out a comment sheet at the Scoping Meeting to be added to the project mailing list, or provide an e-mail address for periodic e-newsletter updates. There will also be other opportunities for involvement through public open houses, workshops, and/or a formal Public Hearing. Watch for notices in the Bozeman Chronicle and the Gallatin County News for upcoming meetings. Who will make the decision? The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) makes the final decision based on a recommendation from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). MDT’s recommendation will be based on the results of the environmental evaluation, traffic analysis, engineering feasibility, construction costs, and public and agency input. Who is paying for the study? FHWA and MDT are paying for the study with highway tax dollars. Construction monies to build any recommended improvements have not been identified or appropriated. Completing the EA puts the project in line for future funding when it becomes available. Who will conduct the study? A private consultant engineering firm (HKM Engineering) has been hired to conduct the study and prepare the conceptual designs to be analyzed. Milestones in the NEPA Process “FoNSI” or Initiate EIS Process Public Hearing Review and Comment Period Environmental Assessment Alternatives Analysis Development of Alternatives Scoping Process Current Phase of the Study: The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the City of Bozeman, will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposal to reconstruct Rouse Avenue. This process has several distinct phases that are illustrated as mileposts in the graphic at right. There are two key aspects to this study: a proactive public participation program to ensure that we understand your concerns, and a rigorous exploration of alternatives to ensure that we are being responsive to the needs of the area residents and users of the area’s transportation facilities. The study is now in the “Scoping” phase and the Project Team is soliciting information and comment from appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and from private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in the proposal. During the upcoming months, alternatives will be developed and evaluated for their effectiveness in providing the desired improvements and for their potential impacts. Additional information meetings will be scheduled during the course of the study, and a formal Public Hearing will be held after the EA has been prepared. Public notice will be given of the time and place of additional information meetings, and the formal Public Hearing. The EA will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the Hearing. Comments and/or suggestions from all interested parties are requested to ensure that the full range of issues are identified and reviewed. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and/or the EA should be directed to: Montana Department of Transportation Jean A. Riley, P.E. Environmental Services Bureau 2701 Prospect Avenue PO Box 201001 Helena, Montana 59620-1001
Who Should I Contact? Jeff Ebert – MDT, District Administrator 3751 Wynne PO Box 3068 Butte, Montana 59702-3068 406/494-9600 phone 800/261-6909 toll free 800/335-7592 TTY Darryl James – HKM Engineering, Environmental Manager 7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 3W PO Box 1009 Helena, Montana 59624-1009 406/442-0370 phone 406/442-0377 fax STPP 86-1(27)0 CN 4805 ROUSE AVENUE - BOZEMAN How Can I Get Involved? Several opportunities will be available for people to get involved and stay informed about the proposed improvements along Rouse Avenue. They include: • Getting on the Project Mailing List • Receiving project newsletters • Attending public meetings • Calling or writing for information • Asking the Project Team to make a presentation to your group ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project Newsletter No. 1 December 2005 The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has announced its intention to reconstruct a portion of Rouse Avenue, in Bozeman. As a first step in the project development process, MDT has initiated a study to determine what impacts may be associated with the proposal. The study will follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations. This process will ensure a full and fair discussion of all potential social, economic, and environmental impacts before specific decisions are made on the corridor improvements. The Public Scoping Meeting represents the first formal step in the investigation process. More details on the process and opportunities for public involvement may be found inside this newsletter. Public Scoping Meeting – December 7, 2005 Meeting Agenda: 6:00 – 6:30 p.m. Open House 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. Presentation Welcoming Remarks Introduction of Project Team Project History and Overview Purpose of the Study NEPA/MEPA Process Project Timeline 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. Public Issue Identification All comments received during this period will be documented and kept as part of the public record for this proposed project. Any other comments you would like considered should be presented on a comment sheet and provided to Project Team staff at the meeting, or mailed to the address on the comment sheet. 8:00 – 8:30 p.m. Open House An aerial photograph display is available for your review, and Project Team staff are available to discuss your issues and concerns. Project Team: MDT: Jeff Ebert HKM Engineering: Phil Odegard, Project Manager Joe Olsen Chris Laity Gabe Priebe Darryl James Jennifer Peterson FHWA: Jeff Patten Zoe Miller City of Bozeman: Rick Hixson Please add me to your Project Mailing List: Name:______________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address:_____________________________________________________________________ City/State: ______________________________________________________Zip:________________ e-mail address: ___________________________________ The Power Block 7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 3W PO Box 1009 Helena, Montana 59624-1009
The proposed project begins at the intersection of Main Street and Rouse Avenue and extends approximately 2.0 miles on Rouse Avenue to the intersection of Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road. The existing corridor is characterized by: • Homes near the street • Large trees • Creekside Park • Bozeman Creek • Hawthorne School • Neighborhood character along the southern portion and commercial/light industrial towards the northern end The proposed project is intended to address: • Anticipated future traffic demand • Existing traffic congestion • Bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and ADA ramps • Curb and gutter • A boulevard that would provide snow storage • Parking for residents Some of the corridor constraints are shown below: MDT Bozeman Division Shops Historic District Rouse Avenue Main Street Tamarack Peach St. Lamme Griffin Dr. Bozeman Creek Story Mill Rd. Bozeman Creek Hawthorne Elementary School Creekside Park Bozeman Hotel Alternative Development Over the course of the past six months, existing traffic and safety concerns, as well as corridor constraints, have been identified. Meetings were held in December and January, during which the public was asked to provide input regarding needs and desires in the corridor. Based on the initial traffic analysis, the Project Team looked at constructing up to five lanes in the southern end of the corridor between Main Street and Tamarack Street. A preliminary assessment of impacts in the corridor as well as public feedback led the Project Team to reexamine the traffic analysis and recommendations. The current Alternatives propose three lanes to improve safety and reduce congestion, but seek to minimize impacts. Alternative 1 incorporates slightly more features than Alternative 2, but may result in more direct impacts. The Project Team is currently seeking input to determine which of these Alternatives best meets the needs of people who use the corridor. No decision has yet been made on this proposed project. Between Tamarack and Griffin there is an option for a five-lane section. This option is proposed in response to traffic forecasts which show higher traffic volumes in this section. The following table outlines proposed elements for Alternatives 1 and 2: Section Alternative No. of Lanes Parking Bike Lane Blvd Sidewalk Direct Impacts No. of Properties Impacted Main to Mendenhall 1 3 East side only - - 3 none 0 2 3 East side only - - 3 none 0 Mendenhall to Lamme 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 buildings Hawthorne School Yard 4 2 3 East side has parking; west side varies - - 3 2 buildings Hawthorne School Yard 4 Lamme to Creek Crossing 1 3 3 3 3 3 Bozeman Creek Creekside Park 3 buildings 14 2 3 East side only - - East side only none 9 Creek Crossing to Tamarack 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 buildings 48 2 3 3 - 3 3 2 buildings 43 Tamarack to Oak 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 buildings 5 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 buildings 5 Oak to Bond 1 2 - 3 3 3 none 1 2 2 - 3 3 3 1 building 2 Bond to Story Mill Road 1 3 - 3 - - none 1 2 3 - 3 - - none 1 Over the course of the next few months, the Project Team will be further refining Project Alternatives and a Preferred Alternative will be developed. The Preferred Alternative will be presented at the Public Hearing later this summer. Please fill out a comment sheet or contact the Project Team using the information on the back of this newsletter if you wish to provide further input on this Proposed Project. ROUSE AVENUE – BOZEMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ROUSE AVENUE - BOZEMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STPP 86-1(27)0 CN 4805 The Montana Department of Transportation continues to seek public comment on the proposal to widen and reconstruct Rouse Avenue and a section of Bridger Drive in Bozeman. Because of the potential impacts of a reconstruction, the project is being developed using a formal process following the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations. This process will ensure a full and fair discussion of all potential social, economic, and environmental impacts before specific decisions are made on the corridor improvements. Project Team: MDT: Jeff Ebert, District Administrator HKM Engineering: Phil Odegard, Project Manager Joe Olsen, Butte District Darryl James, Environmental Manager Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Construction Lewis Baeth, Project Liaison Gabe Priebe, Consultant Design Zoe Miller, Project Planner Barry Brosten, Environmental Sarah Nicolai, Project Planner Jeremy Salle, Project Engineer FHWA: Jeff Patten Tony Becken-Gaddo, Project Engineer City of Bozeman: Rick Hixson Tracy Oulman Debbie ArkellCurrent Phase of the Study: The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the City of Bozeman, will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposal to reconstruct Rouse Avenue. This process has several distinct phases that are illustrated as mileposts in the graphic to the right. The study is now in the “Alternatives Analysis” phase and the Project Team is currently exploring a range of Alternatives in this corridor. The Alternatives range from doing nothing (No-Build), to widening the roadway to three to five lanes. Alternatives developed to date attempt to balance traffic and safety concerns with the desire to minimize impacts. A formal Public Hearing will be held once the EA has been prepared. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the Hearing. The EA will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the Hearing. Project Newsletter No. 2 May 2006 Who Should I Contact? Jeff Ebert – MDT, District Administrator 3751 Wynne PO Box 3068 Butte, Montana 59702-3068 406/494-9600 phone 800/261-6909 toll free 800/335-7592 TTY Darryl James – HKM Engineering, Environmental Manager 7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 3W PO Box 1009 Helena, Montana 59624-1009 406/442-0370 phone 406/442-0377 fax How Can I Get Involved? Several opportunities will be available for people to get involved and stay informed about the proposed improvements along Rouse Avenue. They include: • Getting on the Project Mailing List • Receiving project newsletters • Attending public meetings • Calling or writing for information • Asking the Project Team to make a presentation to your group Please add me to your Project Mailing List: Name:______________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address:_____________________________________________________________________ City/State: ______________________________________________________Zip:________________ e-mail address: ___________________________________ The Power Block 7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 3W PO Box 1009 Helena, Montana 59624-1009 Scoping Process Development of Alternatives Alternatives Analysis Environmental Assessment Review and Comment Period Public Hearing “FoNSI” or Initiate EIS Process Milestones in the NEPA Process
MEMORANDUM
TO: GO-BUILD, DALE BELAND
FROM: BROOK JACKSHA
SUBJECT: MEETING MINUTES FROM 01-25-2006 PUBLIC MEETING
DATE: 6/20/2006
CC: CORY R., KATRYN M., DAVID S.; FILE - 051185
Public Meeting Purpose: Discuss Reconstruction of Rouse Avenue and Bridger Drive
Presented by: Darryl James, Environmental Manager, HKM Engineering
Project Extents: From the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Main Street approximately 2 miles on Rouse
to the intersection of Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road.
Projected Traffic Demands: Traffic demand projected out 20 to 25 years using State Regional Model.
Team will compare results with the City 20/20 plan. Traffic data is currently being collected on Rouse
Avenue.
Preliminary Timeframe: Begin construction in 2010-2011.
Preliminary Budget: $6 Million from future State Transportation Bill following the 2009 Bill
Summary: Meeting gave brief overview of project and potential concerns associated with corridor
improvements. Floor was held by public the majority of the time voicing their concerns. The following is
a list summarizing the issues addressed by the public attendees.
Public Concerns:
1. Resident on Rouse Avenue does not want to give up land or have a 4-lane road through their
front yard.
2. The intersection of Peach and Rouse is dangerous and inefficient; they would like to see
improvements there.
3. Business owner on Rouse voiced concern about losing business due to construction. They fear a
repeat of the financial difficulties experienced during the “sewer disaster.”
4. Concerned about the impacts on side streets due to construction activities.
5. The intersection of Oak and Rouse is dangerous; they would like to see improvements.
6. RR X-ing is in poor condition and dangerous for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
7. A wildlife corridor exists under the Interstate 90 Bridge.
8. Is the money for the project going to come from the residents or where? Response: The project is a
state road and classified as an Urban project, therefore the money comes from the Federal Government. The
private developers and home owners will not be required to fund this project.
9. On-street Parking limits visibility. Move parking to one side of street?
2
10. Boulevard is going to cause residents to lose land.
11. What do you do with the creek that is currently over-topping Rouse Avenue during flood
seasons, culvert it under the road?
12. L-street/Oak Extension (Wallace) People think that route should be made the new state highway
to divert traffic away from the residential area on Rouse. Response: This upgrade is shown on the
horizon of DOT planning, but funding is an issue because Oak and Wallace are not State classified as
Urban Routes.
13. People question the influence of the Gallatin County Road and Planning departments.
14. Re-route Rouse traffic down Griffin. Response: That doesn’t alleviate the need for a N-S corridor.
15. Hawthorne School Crossing – is a pedestrian overpass possible? More lanes would make
crossing the road completely unsafe. Pedestrian mobility is very important in that area-
Library/school/downtown. Response: Pedestrian overpass to be considered however project is limited
by its budget for which features can be implemented.
16. Oak should be designated as a State Route?
17. City 20/20 Plan is already exceeded in growth expectations.
18. Wonders why improvements go all the way to Story Mill Road and don’t stop at Griffin?
19. Over 1600 units in proposed and/or approved subdivisions out northeast of Rouse, wonders
how is the state going to manage that?
20. Sidewalks and bike lanes are very important.
21. RR-Xing already backs up cars at 6pm- can we do something about that?
22. What is the speed limit going to be by Hawthorne School? Currently posted at 25mph can it go
down to 15mph?
23. Will closing the dump affect project?
24. Are signals going to be implemented? Response: New signals and signal modifications will be
considered by a signal warrant study at 5 locations.
25. City approves all these subdivisions, do they even think about the impacts they will have on the
roads?
26. Do developers help finance the improvements? Response: On North 19th developers did help to
expedite the process, but here the financing is taken care of because of the designated State Road.
27. Can short term improvements be made before 2010 (raising sinking manholes, fixing road edge
hazards, etc)?
28. Can heavy industrial traffic be restricted?
29. Storm water runoff and flood plain concerns, people concerned about flooded basements.
30. How will drainage be handled? Currently not enough drainage structures. Response: Drainage and
water quality will be addressed. Will Consider drainage structures and grass swales.
31. Pedestrian oriented streetscapes should be considered including new trees and pedestrian scale
lighting.
32. Landscaping allowance included in project? Response: Landscaping will be considered but the main
objective is on traffic improvements
33. Can Impact fees possibly help with financing current improvement needs in the area? Response:
Possibly at the City level. City responded that Impact fees go into the general fund which currently is
targeting improvements on Durston from 7th to 19th.
34. How will public stay informed? Response: There will be a project website that will be accessible.
Project Contacts:
HKM Engineering:
Darryl James, Environmental Manager, (406)442-0370
Zoe Miller, Planner, (406)442-0370
MDT:
Jeff Ebert, District Administrator, (406)494-9600
MEMORANDUM
TO: BROOK JACKSHA, CORY RAVNAAS
FROM: KATRYN MITCHELL
SUBJECT: MEETING MINUTES FROM 05-31-2006 PUBLIC MEETING
DATE: 6/20/2006
CC: FILE - 051185
Public Meeting Purpose: Discuss Proposal to Widen and Reconstruct Rouse Avenue and Bridger
Drive
Presented by: Darryl James, Environmental Manager, HKM Engineering
Project Extents: From the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Main Street approximately 2 miles
on Rouse to the intersection of Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road.
Projected Traffic Demands: Traffic demand projected out 20 to 25 years using State Regional
Model. Team will compare results with the City 20/20 plan. Traffic data is currently being
collected on Rouse Avenue.
Preliminary Timeframe: It will be 2011 before any construction starts.
Preliminary Budget: $6 Million from future State Transportation Bill following the 2009 Bill
Summary: Meeting gave a brief overview of the two (2) alternatives being considered and
descriptions of the concerns associated with each alternative. Floor was held by public the
majority of the time voicing their concerns and questions.
Alternatives: HKM determined that five (5) travel lanes would be necessary to obtain a LOS C
throughout the project area. Because of the high impacts 5 lanes would cause, they decided 3
lanes is more probable with 5 lane sections where feasible. The section of roadway between
Tamarak and Bond will probably have 5 lanes because of the increase of traffic in that area.
Alternative 1 and 2 vary depending on the stretch of roadway. They implement features such as
2-3 travel lanes, street side parking, bike lanes, a boulevard, and sidewalks. Generally,
Alternative 1 has more features than Alternative 2. A handout at the meeting provides a chart
detailing the differences in alternatives and is attached to this memo.
Public Concerns:
1. Sidewalk is important between Bond and Story Mill Road because of all the development
happening and the location of the Boys and Girls Club.
2. Bike lanes should be separate from roadway. Response: They will be where space allows.
2
3. Trucks should be rerouted from traveling on Rouse Avenue.
4. If Rouse is widened to 3 lanes, the sidewalk runs through a resident’s living room. If he
moves his house back from the road, it gets too close to Bozeman Creek. Response: HKM
is not answering personal concerns at this time.
5. What is going to happen at Mendenhall and Main? Response: Not much because space is
limited with the Bozeman Hotel and Hawthorne School.
6. Concerned about increasing speeds associated with a wider roadway.
7. Pollution of Bozeman Creek.
8. Oak Street should be made a through street to divert some traffic. Response: This is in the
transportation plan.
9. There should be a bottleneck at the Hawthorne School.
10. Request for an Alternative 3 that is exclusively a pedestrian and bicycle improvement
alternative.
11. Why Rouse when there are more congested roads in the city? Response: Other roads are
being improved as well, it is all planned in the overall City Transportation Plan.
12. Speed bumps should be installed on Rouse.
13. Concern about not actually solving and traffic problems by the time 2011 is here.
14. Train should be grade separated. Response: Too Expensive.
15. Will road be completely closed during construction? Response: no.
Project Contacts:
HKM Engineering:
Phil Odegard, Project Manager, (406)442-0370
Darryl James, Environmental Manager, (406)442-0370
Zoe Miller, Planner, (406)442-0370
MDT:
Jeff Ebert, District Administrator, (406)494-9600
FULL BUILD-OUT
TRAFFIC STUDY
for the Story Mill Neighborhood
OCTOBER 2006
GOBUILD, Inc.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.gobuild.com
GBDARCHITECTS Inc.
PORTLAND, OREGON
www.gbdarchitects.com
HYALITE ENGINEERS, PLLC (with ABELIN TRAFFIC SERVICES)
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.hyaliteeng.com
COMMA-Q ARCHITECTURE, Inc.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
www.commaq.com
KATH WILLIAMS, Ed.D.
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
williams@theglobal.net
www.storymillcenter.com
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
i
Table of Contents
A. Proposed Full Build-Out Development........................................................1
B. Trip Generation and Assignment................................................................1
C. Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................3
D. Traffic Impacts Outside of the Development...............................................5
E. Conclusions & Recommendations..............................................................8
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Proposed Development.......................................................................2
Figure 2 – Trip Distribution...................................................................................4
List of Tables
Table 1 – Trip Generation Rates..........................................................................3
Table 2 – Level of Service Summary With Story Mill Full Build-Out.....................5
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 1 of 8
Full Build-out Traffic Study
Story Mill Center
Bozeman, Montana
This document provides information about the traffic effects from the full-build-out
of the Story Mill Center development and is based off of the proposed site layout as
of September 8th, 2006. The study also makes assumptions for the development of the
Stockyard property. This document is intended for internal use only and will be
revised once the details of each development phase have been finalized. However,
the overall traffic impacts should not change. This document does not evaluate the
effect of the possible Oak Street connection with East Main Street and/or Rouse
Avenue.
A. PROPOSED FULL BUILD-OUT DEVELOPMENT
This document studies the possible traffic effects from the full build-out of the Story Mill Center.
The overall development of the property will consist of eleven separate phases in five areas. A
separate traffic report will be prepared for each phase of the development. In total the development
will include over 1,300 homes, 100,000 s.f. of retail space, and 10,000 s.f of office space. Primary
access to the site will be provided from Bryant Street, Griffin Drive, and Story Mill Road. The
overall layout of the Story Mill Center subdivision is shown in Figure 1.
B. TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT
ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine anticipated future traffic volumes from the
proposed development. ATS used the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition). These rates are the national standard and are based on
the most current information available to planners. A vehicle “trip” is defined as any trip that either
begins or ends at the development site. Judging from field observations and the typical nature of
residential developments, ATS determined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and
roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. The trip generation
rates for the site are shown in Table 1. Note that the traffic from the existing 92 mobile homes
currently located in Parcel D has been subtracted from the total trip generation from Parcel D. At
full build-out the proposed development would produce 860 AM peak hour trips, 1,386 PM peak
hour trips, and 12,206 daily trips.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 2 of 8
Table 1 - Trip Generation Rates
Figure 1 - Proposed Development
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 3 of 8
Land Use
Units AM Peak
Hour Trip
Ends per
Unit
Total AM
Peak
Hour Trip
Ends
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Ends per
Unit
Total PM
Peak
Hour Trip
Ends
Weekday
Trip Ends
per Unit
Total
Weekday
Trip Ends
Parcel A
Single
Tenant Office
9,200
S.F. 1.8 17 1.73 16 11.57 106
General
Retail
44,500
S.F. 2.71 121 6.84 304 44.32 1,972
Townhouse 146 0.44 64 0.52 76 5.86 856
Single Family
Residential 9 0.75 7 1.01 9 9.57 86
Subtotal 209 405 3020
Parcel B
Townhouse 175 0.44 77 0.52 91 5.86 1026
Parcel C
Single
Tenant Office
1,000
S.F. 1.8 2 1.73 2 11.57 12
General
Retail
20,000
S.F. 2.71 54 6.84 137 44.32 886
Townhouse 264 0.44 116 0.52 137 5.86 1,547
Single Family
Residential 58 0.75 44 1.01 59 9.57 555
Subtotal 216 335 3,000
Parcel D
General
Retail
28,200
S.F. 2.71 76 6.84 193 44.32 1,250
Townhouse 470 0.44 207 0.52 244 5.86 2,754
Mobile
Homes* -92 0.44 -40 0.59 -54 4.99 -459
Subtotal 243 383 3,545
Stockyard
General
Retail
10,000
S.F. 2.71 27 6.84 68 44.32 443
Townhouse 200 0.44 88 0.52 104 5.86 1,172
Subtotal 115 172 1,615
OVERALL
TOTAL 860 1,386 12,206
*Proposed For Removal.
C. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The traffic distribution and assignment within the general area of the proposed project was based
upon the existing ADT volumes along the adjacent roadways, the peak hours’ directional volumes,
turning volumes at the intersections, and field observations of drivers during field data collection
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 4 of 8
efforts. The trip distribution at each intersection is adjusted to provide the most logical use of the
intersections and to provide an overall trip distribution for the area that matches the currently
observed patterns. Traffic is expected to distribute itself as follows:
• 55% to/from the south on Rouse Avenue,
• 25% to/from the west on Griffin Road,
• 8% to/from the east on Bridger Canyon Road,
• 3% to/from the north on Story Mill Road, and
• 9% to/from the south on Story Mill Road.
Figure 2- Trip Distribution
Figure 2 shows the anticipated trip distribution for the Story Mill area. It should be noted that
although 55% of the overall traffic will use Rouse Avenue south of the development site, only 30%
of that traffic will still be on Rouse Avenue south of Tamarack Street. Overall trip distribution
characteristics and site-generated traffic are shown on figures in Appendix B.
D. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
25%
Griffin Avenue
Rouse Avenue Story Mill Road/ L Street
Bridger Canyon Road
55%
3%
8%
9%
Proposed
Development
Site
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 5 of 8
Using the trip generation and trip distribution numbers, ATS determined the future Level of Service
for the intersections within the vicinity of the proposed development site. The anticipated LOS for
traffic conditions with the proposed development is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – Level of Service Summary with Story Mill Full Build-Out
AM PM
Intersection Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS
Bridger Drive & Story
Mill* 22.5/11.5 C/B 135.4/15.7 F/C
Bridger Drive & Panda
Sports Intersection 22.1 C 31.4 D
Rouse & Griffin** 14.5 A 24.3 C
Rouse & Bryant Street*139.5/14.3 F/B 405.1/61.1 F/F
Rouse & Oak Street** 15.5 B 25.3 C
Rouse & Tamarack 14.8 B 23.1 C
*Northbound/Southbound or Eastbound/Westbound LOS.
**With Signalization, 2007.
The traffic data indicates that all of the signalized intersections in this area will continue to function
with minimal delay through full build-out of the Story Mill Center. However, the intersections of
Story Mill Road/Bridger Drive, Panda Sports/Bridger Drive, and Rouse Avenue/Bryant Street will
experience operational problems at full build-out of the property.
The intersection of Rouse Avenue and Bryant Street will experience a considerable increase in
traffic volumes and a poor level of service in the peak hours. The addition of extra lanes at this
intersection would improve the overall delay, but the intersection would still function at poor levels
of service. This intersection would likely need to be signalized prior to full build-out of the
property. Signalization would likely need to occur in conjunction with the development of the
southwest corner of the property (Phase 4). Once signalized, the intersection will operate at LOS B.
A traffic signal at Bryant Street would be 400 feet from the MRL tracks and I-90 overpass which is
the same distance as between the MRL tracks and the new Oak Street traffic signal.
The Montana Department of Transportation will not generally approve a traffic signal unless one or
more traffic signal warrants are met. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
contains eight separate traffic signal warrants. One or more of these warrants should be met before a
traffic signal is installed at an intersection. In order to evaluate these signal warrants it is necessary
to assemble 24-hour traffic volume data, pedestrian volumes, and historic crash trends for an
intersection. The individual traffic signal warrants include:
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 6 of 8
• Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume,
• Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume,
• Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Vehicular Volume,
• Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume,
• Warrant 5 – School Crossing,
• Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System,
• Warrant 7 – Crash Experience, and
• Warrant 8 – Roadway Network.
A review of the projected traffic volumes at this intersection indicate that with the proposed
development traffic the intersection will likely meet the peak-hour traffic volume warrant by build-
out of Phase 4. However, it should be noted that it is extremely difficult to evaluate most of the
traffic signal warrants for future traffic conditions. It may be most desirable for the developers to
prepare a traffic signal design for this intersection and only construct the signal once field
observations show that one or more of the signal warrants are met.
Along with the signalization the developers will need to coordinate with HKM, the City of
Bozeman, and MDT to help implement the reconstruction of Rouse Avenue near Bryant Street to
include the numbers of lanes that are ultimately recommended for this section (either a three- or
five-lane cross-section). The developers should also install separated left and right-turn lanes for
westbound traffic on Bryant Street with Phase 4 of the development.
The intersection of Rouse Avenue and Griffin Drive will operate at LOS C through full-build-out of
the property with the new traffic signal. However, the overall operations of the intersection would
be improved if an additional left-turn lane were installed for westbound traffic on Griffin Drive. The
addition of this lane would allow the intersection to operate at LOS B (19.3 seconds of delay) during
peak traffic conditions. If this intersection is ultimately reconstructed with a roundabout, no
additional lanes would be necessary.
The intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive may also need to be signalized prior to full
build-out of the development. However, a review of the projected traffic volumes at this
intersection indicate that even at full build-out of the property there may not be sufficient traffic
volume at this intersection to warrant signalization. The developers should monitor this intersection
through the development process and install a traffic signal only if signalization warrants are met.
Regardless of the installation of a traffic signal at this location, the developers should install
separated left and right/through turn lanes for northbound traffic. If this intersection is signalized it
would be beneficial to install left-turn lanes on Bridger Drive for both westbound and eastbound
traffic.
If the Story Mill Road/Bridger drive intersection remains unsignalized, the storage requirements for
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 7 of 8
northbound traffic at the intersection would be 100 feet. If the intersection were signalized the
required storage length would be 150 feet or less (storage length at signalized intersection depends
on traffic volumes, the overall signal design, lane configuration, and signal timing).
The proposed intersection near Panda Sports on Bridger Drive will also experience some operational
problems. Although this intersection will function at LOS D under peak traffic conditions, it is not
likely that there will be sufficient traffic to meet signalization warrants. The intersection is also too
close to Griffin Drive for a signal to be recommended. Rather than trying to mitigate the operations
of this intersection it may be more beneficial for the developers to construct a new roadway
connection onto Griffin Drive closer to the western end of Area D. This connection would help
draw off traffic from the Panda Sports intersection onto the Griffin Drive intersection which will
already be signalized and have considerable reserve capacity. If this new link were made then the
intersection at Panda Sports would function at LOS C during the peak hours and should not require
signalization. If this new link can not be constructed it would be desirable to restrict traffic
movements to right-out only onto Bridger Drive at this location.
Overall traffic volumes within the area will increase with the proposed Story Mill Center, but no
roadways would require significant additional modifications. Traffic volumes along Griffin Drive
will increase by 2,500 VPD, but the overall volume on the roadway will be less than 10,000 VPD,
which is well within the limits of a two-lane roadway. Traffic volumes along Rouse Avenue will
increase to 17,000 VPD, but the proposed three- or five- lane configuration proposed by HKM for
this section of roadway will provide sufficient capacity for safe operations. The traffic volume
increase on Bridger Drive will be minimal.
It is likely that 9% of the traffic from the proposed development site may be funneled down L Street
and Wallace Avenue to reach the eastern portions of Main Street. This would increase the total
traffic volumes along Wallace Avenue by 1,000 VPD. Wallace Avenue is designated as a “local
street” and is not intended to carry large amounts of traffic. The Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan 2001 Update indicates that local urban streets should carry 3,000 VPD or less.
According to data collected by the City of Bozeman, Wallace Avenue currently carries 4,300 VPD
just north of Main Street. However, traffic volumes near the signalized intersection at Main Street
are not a good representation of the traffic volumes over most of Wallace Avenue. ATS conducted a
24-hour hose count on Wallace Avenue in October 2006 to more accurately determine the current
traffic volumes in this area. The traffic count data indicated that the roadway currently carries 1,900
VPD north of Fridley Street (half-way between Main Street and Front Street). With the estimated
1,000 VPD additional traffic from the Story Mill Center development, Wallace Avenue will carry
2,900 VPD for most of its length. This number is in line with the 3,000 VPD recommend limit for
local streets.
If traffic issues along Wallace Avenue become a problem for area residents it would be possible to
decrease traffic volumes and speeds on the roadway by incorporating traffic calming measures.
Story Mill Center ‐ Bozeman, Montana
Full Build‐Out Traffic Study October 13, 2006
Abelin Traffic Services 8 of 8
These traffic calming measures could include strategically placed STOP signs, curb bulbs, traffic
circles, or other measures. None of these measures are recommended at this time, but traffic
volumes and speed along Wallace Avenue should be monitored through the development of the
Story Mill Center and appropriate traffic calming measures should be installed if warranted.
E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Story Mill Center will affect the traffic conditions at the intersections along Griffin Drive.
However, most of the major intersections along this corridor are already signalized or will be
signalized shortly as part of other projects going on in this area. The Story Mill Development will
require the addition of two signalized intersections in this area and variety of turn lanes to help
maintain the flow of traffic. The recommendations for the overall development of the Story Mill
Center include:
• Signalize the intersection of Bryant Street/Rouse Avenue once signalization warrants are met
(end of Phase 4). Install separated left- and right-turn lanes on Bryant Street.
• Signalize the intersection of Story Mill Road/Bridger Drive once signalization warrants are
met (near the end of construction). Install separated left- and right-turn lanes on Story Mill
Road.
• Add a separated left-turn lane for westbound traffic on Griffin Drive at Rouse Avenue.
• Create an additional internal roadway extension from Area D to Griffin Drive near the
western edge of the development. If this new link can not be constructed it would be
desirable to restrict traffic movements to right-out only onto Bridger Drive at this location.
• Monitor traffic volumes and speeds along Wallace Avenue and install appropriate traffic
calming measures if needed.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
BLUE SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC. & GOBUILD, INC. PAGE 1 OF 6
Outline of Proposed Workforce Housing Plan
Note: We understand that the City of Bozeman is currently in the process
of working with an Affordable Housing Task Force to draft a new
Affordable Housing Ordinance. We expect that a new City Ordinance will
be in place prior to submission of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and
Preliminary Subdivision Plat applications for the Story Mill Center. Our
intent is to comply with or exceed the City’s expectations for Affordable
Housing as governed by adopted ordinances on Affordable Housing.
1. Executive Summary:
a. The purpose of Story Mill Center’s affordable housing program is
to make home ownership available to a greater number of
families thorough value engineering, creative financing, and
existing programs.
b. In doing this, Story Mill Center and the City of Bozeman stand to
benefit by:
i. Maintaining a diverse society.
ii. Increasing the number of people who live and work within
the City of Bozeman city (at Story Mill Center), which has
the potential to reduce demand(s) on infrastructure.
2. Financial Definition of Affordable Housing:
a. The financial definition of affordable housing is any sub-market
value residential housing product offered for sale at Story Mill
Center.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
BLUE SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC. & GOBUILD, INC. PAGE 2 OF 6
b. Market rates for homes, median income, affordable housing
definitions, and affordable housing qualifiers are constantly
changing.
c. The formulas to be used to determine income levels for this
program shall be agreed to by the parties as the planning and
development process proceeds.
d. The Human Resource and Development Council (HRDC) has
guidelines for individuals and families to help them make
decisions on their ability to rent or own a home.
e. Story Mill Center is working and will continue to work with HRDC
to determine how affordable housing definitions change and
what affect those changes have to provide individuals and
families with housing needs.
3. Story Mill Center products
a. Phasing
i. The Story Mill Center has delineated four phases of
planning and implementation.
ii. When complete, each of the four phases at Story Mill
Center will have 10% of integrated affordable housing.
iii. Gobuild, Inc. will include integrated rental affordable
housing in the Story Mill Center.
b. Bridger View Trailer Park residents, affordable housing agencies,
and Gobuild, Inc. do not support the creation of another trailer
park without an ownership interest in the land. A number of
individuals working with Gobuild have been unsuccessful in
establishing interest in creating a new trailer park in the Bozeman
area. It is for this reason that Gobuild has not focused efforts on
perpetuating the illusion of home ownership through an
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
BLUE SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC. & GOBUILD, INC. PAGE 3 OF 6
additional lot rental situation as part of this affordable housing
plan.
c. Based on input from residents at Bridger View Trailer Park as well
as market analysis, the following product types have been
identified for individuals or families who are challenged to
purchase market rate housing.
i. Loft Apartments; 500 to 750 square feet, without a garage.
ii. Town homes; 1,100 to 1,200 square feet with a garage.
iii. Live Work apartments or row houses; 1,100 to 3,000 square
feet with optional garages.
iv. Additional product types may be added based on
demand at various times in development. These may
include homes with a yard, apartments in taller buildings,
or additional creative ideas.
v. Habitat for Humanity lots
4. Story Mill Center programs
a. Many affordable housing programs already exist and it is a
function of Story Mill Center’s affordable housing plan to
“connect the dots” between individuals who need affordable
housing, existing programs, and the builder/ developer for this
project.
b. In-house programs by either Story Mill Center, Gobuild, Inc, or
other entities are being considered and include the following:
i. A rent-to-own program. A portion of (for example, three
years) rent can be applied as a down payment to a home
purchase at that time.
ii. Deed restrictions to control pricing.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
BLUE SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC. & GOBUILD, INC. PAGE 4 OF 6
iii. Down Payment Assistance. The value of a trailer can be
applied as a form of down payment for a home at the
Story Mill Center.
iv. Employer Assistance Program.
1. Shared equity plan.
2. Down payment plan.
3. Vesting plan.
4. Homeownership assistance plan.
v. Sweat equity. A method of exchanging work for value of
the home.
vi. Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). Research into the
viability of establishing an investment fund for property to
allow for a variety of strategies to work together. Investors,
lenders, buyers, and agency cooperation. Ideas include
mortgage offerings, investment return, and an objective of
providing ownership interest for households that may not
be able to qualify for other programs.
vii. Combinations of these concepts may be configured
depending on their viability.
5. Affordable Housing Footprints and Elevations
a. Specific products and locations will be identified as plans/plats
are drawn.
b. Elevations and design features for affordable housing products
will be drawn with input from an informal group of affordable
housing agencies, qualifying households, and incorporated into
the city process as required.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
BLUE SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC. & GOBUILD, INC. PAGE 5 OF 6
6. Bozeman Area Demographics
a. The demands for affordable housing products clearly exist in
Bozeman.
b. The guiding terms for Story Mill Center are “mixed use, mixed
density, and mixed neighborhood.” These terms refer to the
nature of the neighborhood development and the goals and
objectives Story Mill is working with. This is an eclectic
neighborhood that will not appear as a cookie cutter street or a
gated community. The demand for, and health of, a
neighborhood can be measured by the level of integration
achieved. It is this aspect of Bozeman that Story Mill Center
hopes to build on.
7. Administration
a. Phase one of the affordable housing plan for Story Mill Center is
directed toward residents of Bridger View Trailer Park displaced
as a result of the project.
b. Qualifying: we’re challenging the paradigm of getting people
into home ownership that otherwise wouldn’t have the means to
do so. Naturally we’re anticipating some challenges, and will be
stopped only when natural barriers appear.
c. Participation with Habitat for Humanity and HRDC administrative
process is expected to play a significant role in the Story Mill
Center’s affordable housing plan.
d. Supplemental models for managing the affordable housing
strategy are also being researched to provide every resource
available. The greater the offerings, the greater the potential
value and cost savings we are able to offer.
A PPLICATION FOR INFORMAL ADVICE AND DIRECTION
FOR THE S TORY M ILL N EIGHBORHOOD C ITY OF B OZEMAN, G ALLATIN C OUNTY, M ONTANA
OCTOBER, 2006
BLUE SKY DEVELOPMENT, INC. & GOBUILD, INC. PAGE 6 OF 6
8. Conclusion
a. The Story Mill Center has a commitment to creating a diverse
neighborhood that includes opportunities for individuals and
families to own homes.
b. The Story Mill Center hopes to achieve the goals and objectives
of this affordable housing plan by aligning efforts with the City of
Bozeman, HRDC, and customers looking for affordable housing.
c. Through the project build-out process at Story Mill, Gobuild, Inc.
intends to retain flexibility in design, product type and quantity to
accommodate unforeseen market changes.
d. Story Mill Center hopes to set an example as a leader for
integrating a new neighborhood development into an existing
infill area while including affordable housing.
e. New information will be added to the draft plan before it is
formally submitted as part of an official subdivision application.
Charts and graphs illustrating current market trends are also
intended to be included.
f. Building location(s), plans, and phasing will be provided prior to
final plat.