The URL can be used to link to this page

H1. Reso 5909 - Eagle Valley Ranch Prelim PlatPLANNING FOR THE FUTURE REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: MONT"A Doug Russell, City Manager Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner Planning Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning KPP-18-10 — Eagle Valley Ranch Preliminary Plat February 4, 2019 BACKGROUND: A request from Spartan Holdings, LLC for a major subdivision to be known as Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 1-3. The proposed subdivision is located within the Eagle Valley Ranch PUD, which encompasses approximately 99-acres and calls for 225 single-family residential lots, mixed -use office lots, assisted living complex and apartment complex site. The request would subdivide 64-acres of the larger 99-acre Eagle Valley Ranch Development into 18 mixed use office/multi-family lots, 114-single-family residential, common/open space and city streets. The proposed subdivision corresponds with the approved PUD. The application was reviewed in accordance with Section 28.2.06 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. The proposed subdivision is generally situated along Highway 93 North, south of Ponderosa Residential Subdivision, east of Northern Pines Golf Course and north of the Montana National Guard facilities. The subject property can be legally described as described as Tracts 4, 7 and 8 of COS 4491 and Tract 2 of COS 5975, situated in the SW4 Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M. Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing January 8, 2019, to consider the application request. Staff presented staff report KPP-18-10 providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff recommended to the board to consider amending condition 912, which requires that a 2-acre utility lot for a water storage facility be dedicated to the city behind lots 106-115 within the common area. Nygren proposed that the board also consider language including an area along U.S. 93. The amended condition language would provide two areas on the property for the location of an elevated water tank, in accordance with the City of Kalispell Water Facility Plan. This would give the city and developer greater flexibility for where the elevated water storage facility is constructed in the future. Staff reported that the proposed preliminary plat was consistent with the subdivision regulations, the zoning, and the growth policy. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the Council that the preliminary plat be approved, subject to 25 conditions. During the public comment portion of the hearing, two members of the public wanted clarification on access and the potential apartment building site layout. A representative of the applicant spoke in favor of the request. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KPP-18-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 1-3 be approved, subject to 25 conditions. There was brief discussion regarding the amendment of condition No. 12, at which time a motion was presented to amend the condition, which includes a second area for an elevated water tank. Further discussion concluded the amendment was appropriate and the amendment to condition No. 12 passed unanimously upon roll call vote. Board discussion concluded that the preliminary plat request was appropriate, and the original motion as amended passed unanimously on roll call vote. RECOMN[ENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve Resolution 5909, a resolution approving a request from Spartan Holdings, LLC for major subdivision Preliminary Plat KPP-18-10, a major subdivision preliminary plat with 25 conditions of approval, located in Tracts 4, 7 and 8 of COS 4491 and Tract 2 of COS 5975, situated in the SW4 Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M. Flathead County, Montana. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5909 January 8, 2019, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Staff Report Application Materials & Maps Public Comment c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 5909 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PHASES 1-3 OF EAGLE VALLEY RANCH, DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 4,7 AND 8 OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 4491 AND TRACT 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 5975, SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, Spartan Holdings, LLC, the owner of the certain real property described above, has petitioned for approval of Phases 1-3 of the Subdivision Plat of said property; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2019 on the proposal and reviewed Subdivision Report #KPP-18-10 issued by the Kalispell Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Phase 1-3 of Eagle Valley Ranch, subject to certain conditions and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council at its regular council meeting of February 4, 2019, reviewed the Kalispell Planning Department Report #KPP-18-10, reviewed the recommendations of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, and found from the Preliminary Plat, and evidence, that the subdivision is in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Findings of Fact contained in Kalispell Planning Department Report #KPP-18-10 are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact of the city council. SECTION 2. That the application of Spartan Holdings, LLC for approval of the Preliminary Plat of Phases 1-3 of Eagle Valley Ranch, Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council. 2. All provisions of Ordinance 1814 (Eagle Valley Ranch PUD) shall be complied with. 3. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. 4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the current city standards for design and construction. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the public works department stating that the drainage plan for the subdivision has been installed as designed and approved. 5. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 6. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. 7. The developer shall submit the street design to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. Street designs shall meet the city standards for design and construction. 8. Prior to final plat, a letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or a proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work. 9. The developer shall obtain an approach permit from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) for approaches onto U.S. 93 North. If any improvements are necessary at the intersection of the roadways, these improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the MDT prior to final plat and MDT shall so certify this in writing to the city. 10. Prior to final plat all mitigation required as part of the approved traffic impact study shall be completed. All improvements shall be reviewed and approved by either the Public Works Department or Montana Department of Transportation. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department or Montana Department of Transportation shall be submitted stating that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or State of Montana. If infrastructure work has not been accepted, a letter stating that a proper bond has been accepted for the unfinished work by the appropriate agency is required. 11. West Eagle Valley Drive shall be improved to city standards prior to final plat of Phase 2. 12. As part of final plat of Phase 1, the developer shall provide the City of Kalispell a 2-acre utility lot, that is found to be acceptable by the Kalispell Public Works Director. Two sites have been identified as a suitable location for the water storage facility; a site behind lots 106-115 of this preliminary plat within the common area, and another site located on the nob adjacent U.S. 93 North, north of Parcel A of COS 6557. The developer shall also provide an easement for a water line extension to the proposed water utility site. 13. A fire apparatus access road agreement, approved by the Kalispell Fire Chief, for the secondary access road shall be completed prior to final plat of Phase 1. 14. Lots 9-12 shall not have access off of West Eagle Valley Drive. 15. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be obtained stating that the required easements are being shown on the final plat. 16. The following statement shall appear on the final plat: "The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, providing or offering to provide telephone, telegraph, electric power, gas, cable television, water or sewer service to the public, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of their lines and other facilities, in, over, under, and across each area designated on this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever." Developer's Signature 17. Prior to filing the final plat, a letter from the US Postal Service shall be included stating the Service has reviewed and approved of the design and location of the mail delivery site. The mail delivery site shall be installed or bonded for prior to final plat. In addition, the mail delivery site and improvements shall also be included in the preliminary and final engineering plans to be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The mail delivery site shall not impact a sidewalk or proposed boulevard area. 18. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed and established for the common areas prior to final plat. 19. A letter from the Kalispell Fire Department approving the access, placement of the fire hydrants and fire flows within the subdivision shall be submitted prior to final plat. 20. A letter shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Director approving a landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials within the landscape boulevards of the streets serving the subdivision. 21. The developer shall provide the Parks and Recreation Department with a park improvement plan prior to final plat of Phase 1 for the development, which shall include provisions for the following: • A minimum 10-feet wide paved pedestrian trail shall be constructed along the entire U.S. 93 frontage within the 100-foot buffer. The trail shall be integrally designed into the landscape plan required between the highway and the 100-foot buffer. The pathway shall be as linear as possible and shall not have any bollards obstructing movement. • All locations where park access is shown to the open space area shall include path connections to the city right-of-way. 0 Common area landscaping. • Location and type of playground equipment, or equivalent recreational facility to be used by residents of the development. 22. A park maintenance district shall be formed incorporating all lots, commercial and residential within the subdivision. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owners' association defaults on their park and open space amenity conditions. The taxes levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 23. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 24. All utilities shall be installed underground. 25. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix immediately after development. SECTION 3. Upon proper review and filing of the Final Plat of said subdivision in the office of the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder, said premises shall be a subdivision of the City of Kalispell. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Mark Johnson Mayor KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMNIISSION NIINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING January 8, 2019 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham, Doug Kauffman, Kurt Vomfell, Joshua. Borgardt & George Giavasis. Rory Young & Ronalee Skees were absent. Jarod Nygren, Tom Jentz and PJ Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kauffman moved and Vomfell seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2018 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. KPP-18-10 — EAGLE VALLEY A request from Spartan Holdings, LLC for a major subdivision to be known as RANCH PHASES 1-3 Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 1-3. The proposed subdivision is located within the Eagle Valley Ranch PUD, which encompasses approximately 99-acres and calls for 225 single-family residential lots, mixed -use office lots, assisted living complex and apartment complex site. The request would subdivide 64-acres of the larger 99-acre Eagle Valley Ranch Development into 18 mixed use office/multi-family lots, 114-single-family residential, common/open space and city streets. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KPP-18-10. Nygren advised that staff would like the board to consider amending condition #12, which requires that a 2-acre utility lot for a water storage facility be dedicated to the city behind lots 106-115 within the common area. Nygren proposed that the board also include language including an area along the highway on the knoll. The amended condition language would provide two areas on the property for the location of an elevated water tank, in accordance with the City of Kalispell Water Facility Plan. This would give the city and developer greater flexibility for where the elevated water storage facility is constructed in the future. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-18-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 1-3 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Giavasis inquired about alley access and if the plans were still to include the alleys. Nygren advised that since the new plans do not include townhomes then the alleys would not be required. Vomfell asked how far the pedestrian trail mentioned in condition #21 would be from the highway. Nygren advised it would be approximately 100 feet from the highway. PUBLIC HEARING Frank Haczewski — 151 Arbour Drive — member of Cowboy Church located at 3171 US Hwy 93 North — concerned with access to and from the church and increased traffic. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 8, 2018 Pagel Susan Stark — 318 Ponderosa Lane — inquired about layout of apartments, green space, parking, etc. Jeff Walla — 2250 US Hwy 93 South — Jackola Engineering — representative for applicant — addressed public comment and offered to answer any questions the board may have. MOTION - ORIGINAL Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPP-18-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 1-3 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION All board members mentioned they are pleased with the project and mixed use zoning. MOTION — AMENDMENT TO Kauffman moved and Vomfell seconded a motion to amend condition #12 to CONDITION #12 state the following: As part of final plat of Phase 1, the developer shall provide the City of Kalispell a 2 acre -utility lot that is found to be acceptable by the Kalispell Public Works Director. Two sites have been identified as suitable locations for the water storage facility; a site within the common area behind lots 106-115, and another site locate on the nob adjacent U.S. 93 North, north of Parcel A of COS 6557. The developer shall also provide an easement for a water line extension to the proposed water utility site. ROLL CALL —AMEND #12 The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL MOTION The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Nygren updated the board on the February 12 agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45pm. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. and is located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 1st Ave East. Chad Graham President APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kari Hernandez Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 8, 2018 Page 12 PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE MONTANA �C Planning Department 201 Zst Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE: FEE ATTACHED $17,375.00 Major Subdivision (6 or more lots) $1,000 + $125/lot Major Subdivision Resubmittal $1,000 For each original lot unchanged add $10/lot For each lot redesigned/added add $125/lot Mobile Home Parks & Campgrounds (6 or more spaces) $1,000 + $250/space (5 or fewer spaces) $400 + $125/space Amended Preliminary Plat Amendment to Conditions Only $400 base fee Re -configured Proposed Lots Base fee + $40/lot Add Additional Lots or Subiots Base fee + $125/lot Subdivision Variance $100 (per variance) Commercial and Industrial Subdivision $1,000 + $125/lot SUBDIVISION NAME: EAGLE VALLEY RANCH - PHASE 1 OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Name SPARTAN HOLDINGS, LLC Phone (909)772-7800 Mailing Address 341 W SECOND STREET, STE 1 City SAN BERNARDINO State CA Zip 92401 TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS (Surveyor/Designer/Engineer, etc): Name 8v Address JACKOLA ENGINEERING & ARCHITECTURE Name 8s Address2250 HWY 93 S., KALISPELL MT 59901 Name 8s Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Property Address 3159 US HWY 93 N, KALISPELL, MT 59901 Assessor's Tract No(s) 0721612/0720651 Lot No(s) 1/4 Sec W1/2 Section 19 Township 29 N Range 21 W GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: Number of Lots or Rental Spaces 131 Total Acreage in Subdivision 1 64.27 Total Acreage in Lots 44.82 Minimum Size of lots or Spaces 6,oaa sF Total Acreage in Streets or Roads 10.44 Maximum Size of Lots or Spaces 4.61 Ac Total Acreage in Parks, Open Spaces and/or Common Areas 9.01 PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTS/SPACES: Single Family 113 Townhouse Mobile Home Park Duplex Apartment 4 - 276 DU Recreational Vehicle Park Commercial 14 Industrial Planned Unit Development Condominium Multi -Family Other APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT R-21PUD ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED: Roads: Gravel Paved X Curb x Gutter X Sidewalks X Alleys Other _ Water System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood Public X Other Sewer System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood Public X Other Other Utilities: Cable TV X Telephone X Electric X Gas X Other _ Solid Waste: Home Pick Up X Central Storage Contract Hauler Owner Haul Mail Delivery: Central X Individual School District: Fire Protection: Hydrants X Tanker Recharge Fire District: Drainage System: PROPOSED EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL: SWPPP TO BE PROVIDED VARIANCES: ARE ANY VARIANCES REQUESTED? NO (yes/no) If yes, please complete the information below: SECTION OF REGULATIONS CREATING HARDSHIP: EXPLAIN THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE CREATED WITH STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES) TO STRICT COMPLIANCES WITH ABOVE REGULATIONS: 2 PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THE SPACES PROVIDED BELOW: 1. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties? 2. Will the variance cause a substantial increase in public costs? 3. Will the variance affect, in any ;manner, the provisions of any adopted zoning regulations, Master Plan or Growth Policy? 4. Are there special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the site (topography, shape, etc.) that create the hardship? 5. What other conditions are unique to this property that create the need for a variance? 3 APPLICATION CONTENTS: The subdivider shall submit a complete application addressing items below to the Kalispell Planning Department at least thirty five (35) days prior to the date of the Planning Board meeting at which it will be heard. 1. Completed preliminary plat application. 2. 4 copies of the preliminary plat. 3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See Appendix A of Subdivision Regulations for the city where the subdivision is proposed.) 4. One reduced copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed 11" x 17" in size. 5. Electronic copy of the application materials, including the preliminary plat, either copied onto a disk or emailed to planninggkalispell. com (Please note the maximum file size to email is 20mg) 6. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing the location and boundaries of the property. 7. Application fee based on the schedule on page 1 of this application and made payable to the City of Kalispell. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this application be untrue, I understand that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. s 6 L dt L« DE � 3 zolg (Applicant) ` (Date) 4 Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision — Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment Prepared For: Spartan Holdings, LLC 341 W Second Street, Ste. 1 San Bernardino, CA, 92401 Prepared By: jjj';!IIj r � 0 5 K ��h'tectp,�, 5urve�^a9'�'ara Jackola Engineering & Architecture PO Box 1134 Kalispell, MT 59903 Date December 3, 2018 Table of Contents PART I --PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................1 I. Surface Water....................................................................................................................................1 2. Groundwater.....................................................................................................................................2 3. Topography, Geology and soils............................................................ 4. Vegetation.........................................................................................................................................6 5. Wildlife................................................................................................ ............................................ ..5 6. Land Use.......................................................................................................... ............................... ...6 PART II — SUMMARY OF PROBABLE IMPACTS......................................................................................6 1. Effects on Agriculture.. ...................................................................................................................... 6 2. Effects on Agricultural Water User Facilities.....................................................................................7 3. Effects on Local Services....................................................................................................................8 4. Effects on the Historic or Natural Environment..............................................................................10 5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat..........................................................................................12 6. Effects on the Public Health and Safety..........................................................................................12 PART III — COMMUNITY IMPACT REPORT..........................................................................................13 1. Education and Busing......................................................................................................................13 2. Roads and Maintenance..................................................................... ...................... 3. Water, Sewage, and Solid Waste Facilities......................................................................................16 4. Fire and Police Protection...............................................................................................................17 5. Parks and Recreation Facilities........................................................................................................18 6. Payment for Extension of Capital Facilities.....................................................................................18 Page I i ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by Jackola Engineering and Architecture for the Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision located in Kalispell, MT. The assessment investigates the potential impacts of the proposed development on both the natural environment and the community at large. The EA was conducted following the City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations Title 28, Ordinance No. 1707, Appendix B. The proposed Phase 1 & 2 subdivision is approximately 64.27 acres and located in north Kalispell on the east side of US Highway 93. it is the first two phases of the multi -phase development of the Eagle Valley Ranch PUD; 99 acres of commercial, single-family, and multi -family development. The proposed Phase 1 & Phase 2 development will include 113 single-family residential lots, 276 dwelling units on 4 lots, 14 commercial lots, common area, and City Right -of -Way with corresponding improvements for paved vehicle and pedestrian access and utilities to each lot. Phase 1 development will include 47 single-family residential lots, 4 apartment lots, 12 commercial lots; Phase 2 will provide an additional 66 single-family residential lots and 2 commercial lots. Phase 1 will also develop one, new 3/ movement approach onto US Highway 93. PART I — PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Surface Water: Describe any existing or proposed stream bank alteration from any proposed construction or modification of lake beds or stream channels. Provide information on location, extent, type and purpose of alteration, and permits applied for. A map showing all natural and manmade water bodies and a map showing all federally designated wetland and riparian areas near the site is provided in Appendix B and C respectively. From this map and through visual site inspections, it was determined that there are no known natural or manmade water bodies nor wetland or riparian areas which would be adversely affected through development of the site. Furthermore, there are no proposed alterations to any stream bank, lake bed, or stream channels for the duration of the project. The closest non -seasonal water system to the proposed subdivision is the Stillwater River which runs in a southerly direction approximately 1,600 feet west of the south-eastern property boundary. There is also a small man-made pond located on the Northern Pines Golf Course which is approximately 500 feet west of the south-eastern property boundary. A map showing the 100 year flood plain boundary for the Stillwater River is provided in Appendix B. This map shows the site lying in a zone which is not Page 11 designated as a flood hazard. Therefore, it can be concluded that flooding will be of little risk to any development built on the site. 2. Groundwater A: Provide the following information: The minimum depth to the water table or to the historic water table and identify dates when depths were determined. What is the location and depth of all aquifers which may be affected by the proposed subdivision? Describe the location of known aquifer recharge areas which maybe affected. A geotechnical site investigation was conducted by CMG Engineering in September of 2006 and updated in November, 2018. The preliminary borings from this investigation are provided in Appendix C. Through observations and area knowledge of the site, the groundwater table during peak season is estimated to be approximately4.5 to 9 feet below native ground in the low lying areas. From the Ground -Water Resources of the Flathead Lake Area: Flathead, Lake Missoula, and Sanders Counties Montana, the site lies in the vicinity of the 30-foot deep Lost Creek Aquifer to the north of Kalispell. This aquifer lies substantially lower in depth than the groundwater encountered in the borings which indicates that the first groundwater are likely perched water tables or direct influence from the Stillwater River. Because of this difference in depth, there is likely a limiting geological layer separating these groundwater tables. Thus, it can be concluded that groundwater from the site would not be a significant source of recharge for the aquifers given separation layer which would restrict water from draining to the Lost Creek Aquifer. Ultimately, it is anticipated that development of the subdivision will have minimal impact on nearby aquifers. B: Describe any steps necessary to avoid depletion or degradation of groundwater recharge areas. Although the Subdivision will most likely have a minimal to negligible contribution to degradation of surrounding aquifers, water quality treatment measures will be put in -place in compliance with City of Kalispell M54 requirements to ensure groundwater quality is maintained. 3. Topography, Geology and soils The site is relatively flat with slight undulations due to natural terrain variation. There are natural hills located along the north and east site boundary (adjacent to Ponderosa Pines Subdivision) and at the northwest boundary near US Highway 93. A topographic survey of the site was conducted in November of 2018. A drawing showing contour elevations and existing site elements is provided in Appendix A. In addition to the survey, a geotechnical site investigation was performed in which ten boreholes were drilled to a depth of 15 to 20 feet and piezometers were installed in two boreholes. The borehole data indicates that soils within the site include topsoil, silt and sand, silty clay, silt with gravel. Page 12 A: Provide a map of the topography of the area to be subdivided, and an evaluation of suitability for the proposed land uses. On the map identify any areas with highly erodible soils or slopes in excess of 15% grade. Identify the lots or areas affected. Address conditions such as: A topography survey is provided in Appendix A and is discussed below: i. Shallow Bedrock No shallow bedrock was uncovered during the geotechnicaI investigation. Therefore, it can be concluded that this hazard does not exist onsite ii. Unstable Slopes Since the site is relatively fiat with no large hills or steep embankments which would cause slope instability, it can be concluded that there are no unstable slopes located on the site. iii. Unstable or expansive soils The soils near the surface consist of moisture sensitive, fine-grained soils with little cohesion. As a result, these soils can be easily disturbed and strength diminished during construction, particularly in relatively high moisture content areas and where surface water is allowed to pond. Therefore, positive drainage will be critical during construction to maintain the structural integrity of the soil structure. iv. Excessive slope There are no large hills or steep embankments located on or nearthe site. B: Locate on an overlay or sketch map any known hazards affecting the development which could result in property damage or personal injury due to: A hazard map is provided in Appendix H concerning potential risks to people or property outlined below. i. Falls, slides or slumps — soil, rock, mud, snow Since the site is relatively flat, there is minimal to negligible possibility of damage to property or personal injury from falls, slides, or slumps. ii. Rock outcroppings There are no rock outcroppings in the vicinity of the proposed project. iii. Seismic Activity The site is located within seismic zone D1 which means that the site has a relatively high vulnerability to seismic ground motion. This will be mitigated during the construction of the residential units. Page 13 iv. High Water Table High groundwater is a concern for the site in the low lying areas. A geotechnical site investigation was conducted by CMG Engineering in September of 2006 (and updated November 2018). The Preliminary borings from this investigation are provided in Appendix C. C. Describe measures proposed to prevent or reduce these hazards. High Ground water mitigation Due to the high groundwater level at the site, sublevel structures such as basements and crawlspaces are of concern. As a result, two mitigative precautions will be taken with consideration to grading and design of the single family structures and commercial buildings in the subdivision. First, the single family and commercial structures will not have basements. Second, the finish floor level of each structure will be set such that difference between the finish floor elevation and peak groundwater level will be a minimum of five feet. Stormwater design of the subdivision will take into account peak groundwater level, and pond bottom elevations will be set at least one foot above the native ground surface. ii. Seismic Mitigation To mitigate the effect of any earthquake induced ground motion, all residences will be built in accordance IRC design criteria. D: Describe the location and amount of any cut or fill more than three feet in depth. Indicate these cuts or fills on a plat overlay or sketch map. Where cuts or fills are necessary, describe plans to prevent erosion and to promote vegetation such as replacement of topsoil and grading. As noted above, to reduce the risk to property when building over shallow groundwater, building finish floor elevation and corresponding road grades will be relatively high compared to native. A heat map showing the proposed areas of cuts and fills and the approximate depth in those areas is provided in Appendix I. 4. Vegetation A: On a plat overlay or sketch map: Indicate the distribution of the major vegetation types, such as marsh, grassland, shrub, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest Please see map provided in Appendix G for major vegetation types found on the site Page 14 ii. Identify the location of critical plant communities such as: Stream bank or shoreline vegetation, vegetation on steep, unstable slopes, vegetation on soils highly susceptible to wind or water erosion, type and extent of noxious weeds. Please see map provided in Appendix B and Appendix G for nearby locations of critical plant communities. B: Describe measures to: Preserve trees and other natural vegetation e.g. locating roads and lot boundaries, planning construction to avoid damaging tree cover. As shown on the vegetation map provided in Appendix G, there are only a few cluster areas of trees located on the entire subdivision. These clusters are located on the higher hillsides. There are trees located within the open space platted under Phase Z but these trees would be outside of the development area. Therefore, measures to protect such vegetation will not be needed on Phase 1 or Phase 2. ii. Protect critical plant communities e.g. keeping structural development away from these areas, setting areas aside for open space. As shown on the vegetation map provided in Appendix B and G, there are no critical plant communities located on the site. During construction, stormwater BMPs will be implemented to ensure that runoff from the site will be properly managed and treated. Similarly, runoff water quality after construction will be maintained through the use of Contech CD5 units, or similar approved, which will treat runoff from the site before being discharged. iii. Prevent and control gross, brush or forest fires e.g. green strips, water supply, access. Upon completion of the subdivision, brush fires will be highly unlikely due to the developed urban nature of the subdivision and surrounding properties. City hydrants will be placed throughout the development at maximum 300 foot spacing to provide water during emergencies. iv. Control and prevent growth of noxious weeds All yards within the development will be fully landscaped upon construction of each individual residence. This landscaping will help prevent growth of noxious weeds within the subdivision. Before construction of each lot, all undeveloped areas will be covered with top soil, cleared of any noxious weeds and reseeded with native grasses for stabilization. 5. Wildlife A: Identify species of fish and wildlife use the area affected by the proposed subdivision. Page 15 Large game are the only species which may be affected by the development. Elk, Moose, Mule Deer and White -Tailed deer are listed on the Montana Fish & Wildlife as this area being winter habitat. B: On a copy of the preliminary plat or overlay, identify known critical wildlife areas, such as big game winter range, calving areas and migration routes; riparian habitat and waterfowl nesting areas; habitat for rare or endangered species and wetlands. This area is a Big Game winter range area per Montana Fish & Wildlife website. C: Describe proposed measures to protect or enhance wildlife habitat or to minimize degradation (e.g. keeping buildings and roads back from shorelines; setting aside wetlands as undeveloped open space). Currently Montana Fish and Wildlife have 35.6% of the state is score 2 winter habitat and another 30% of the state is score 1 winter habitat. The current proposed development is in line with the city of Kalispell's growth plan and considering the relatively small size of the proposed development in reference to the size of the habitat in the flathead valley the impact will be minimal. 6. Land Use: Historical imagery shows that the site was previously used as farm land. However, the property is currently with in the City of Kalispell Annexation Boundary and zoned as R-2 and R-2/PUD. The property is part of a PUD previously approved by the City of Kalispell. See appendix A for location map. PART II — SUMMARY OF PROBABLE IMPACTS Summarize the effects of the proposed subdivision on each topic below. Provide responses to the following questions and provide reference materials as required: 1. Effects on Agriculture A: is the proposed subdivision or associated improvements located on or near prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance as defined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service? If so, identify each area on a copy of the preliminary plat. From the NCRS soils report, existing onsite soils consist of Blanchard fine sand, Kalispell loam, Tally Blanchard and flathead soils. Blanchard and Tally Blanchard and Flathead soil types are designated as not prime farmland. A portion of the property is Kalispell Loam which is classified as prime farmland if irrigated. A copy of the NRCS report is provided in Appendix F. B: Describe whether the subdivision would remove from production any agricultural or timberland. Page 16 The subdivision is not located on or near any timber land and will not affect timber production. The subdivision was used as farmland, but has been predesignated as R-2 zoning in a previously approved PUD. The subdivision growth is in line with City of Kalispell's growth plan. C: Describe possible conflicts with nearby agricultural operations, e.g., residential development creating problems for moving livestock, operating farm machinery, operating septage disposal sites, maintaining water supplies, controlling weeds or applying pesticides; agricultural operations suffering from vandalism, uncontrolled pets or damaged fences. Currently the subdivision is bounded on the West by highway 93, to the north by Ponderosa housing development and to the south by the Kalispell Northtown Center Development. There is some farm land and open space to the east but this in part of a previously approved PUD and zoned as R-2 also. D: Describe possible nuisance problems which may arise from locating a subdivision near agricultural or timber lands. Any nuisance from agriculture will be minor as only a relatively small portion of the development is bounded by agricultural land and the major portion of that is open land with only a small portion of that being farmed. E: Describe effects the subdivision would have on the value of nearby agricultural lands. Since the subdivision is within the city annexation boundary it is part of the approved growth policy. The subdivision is not bordering the any agricultural lands along the city annexation boundary and should not directly affect any property values. 2. Effects an Agricultural Water User Facilities A: Describe conflicts the subdivision would create with agricultural water user facilities, e.g. residential development creating problems for operating and maintaining irrigation systems, and whether agricultural water user facilities would be more subject to vandalism or damage because of the subdivision. Since surrounding properties are not of irrigated agricultural use, there will be no conflicts or problems regarding agricultural water use facilities upon development of the subdivision. 8: Describe possible nuisance problems which the subdivision would generate with regard to agricultural water user facilities, e.g. safety hazards to residents or water problems from irrigation ditches, head gates, siphons, sprinkler systems, or other agricultural water user facilities. Since surrounding properties are not of irrigated agricultural use, there will be no nuisance problems regarding agricultural water use facilities upon development of the subdivision. Page 17 3. Effects on Local Services A: indicate the proposed use and number of lots or spaces in each: It is planned that the Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 will consist of 63 lots with 47 single-family dwellings, 4 apartment lots, and 12 commercial lots; Phase 2 will plat an additional 68 lots with 66 single-family dwellings and 2 commercial lots. B: Describe the additional or expanded public services and facilities that would be required of local government or special districts to serve the subdivision. i. Describe additional costs that would result for services such as roads, bridges, law enforcement, parks and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer and solid waste systems, schools or busing, (including additional personnel, construction, and maintenance costs). Upon completion of the Phase 1 and 2 development there will be 127 new sewer and water services, 7780 feet of new water main, 7680 feet of new sewer main, 7710 feet of new City roadway, and approximately 232 new children attending Kalispell schools. The City of Kalispell has approved the PUD for this development and is capable of meeting the service requirements for the new residents. ii. Who will bear the cost, e.g. all taxpayers within the jurisdiction, people within special taxing districts, or users of a service? The sewer and water main extensions will be paid for by the developer. The utility services to each individual property line will be paid for by the developer, and the utility connection and impact fees will be paid for by the developer or lot owner. The City of Kalispell will receive property taxes from the developed lots to use as it sees fit for road maintenance, etc. The Kalispell schools will also receive taxpayer money to help offset the cost of the additional 232 students attending District 5 schools. The City Fire and Police department do not anticipate that there will be an increase in costs or need for additional staff due to the construction of the subdivision. iii. Describe off -site costs or costs to other jurisdictions which may be incurred, e.g. development of water sources or construction of a sewage treatment plant; costs borne by the municipality. There is no need for improvements or increased capacity of the City of Kalispell wastewater treatment plant or water source to provide those services to the subdivision. Page 18 C: Describe how the subdivision allows existing services, through expanded use, to operate more efficiently, or makes the installation or improvement of services feasible, e.g. allow installation of a central water system, or upgrading a rural road. New water and sewer mains will be constructed throughout the subdivision. A water main will be extended from Kalispell North Town Center on Jefferson Street north into the subdivision. This mail will loop through the subdivision and reconnect with the water main on US Highway 93. The looped water main will provide improved fire flows and pressures in both subdivisions. Sewer will be extended into the subdivision from US Highway 93. The proposed sewer main will be upsized to 12 inches to provide connection capacity for future developments to the east. D: What are the present tax revenues received from the un-subdivided land? From the 2018 Real Estate Tax Bill there are two properties within this subdivision with a total acreage of 58.9. Taxes totaling $8,034 were paid to the county in the last year. The following is a breakdown of the dollar amount to each taxing authority. By the County $430 was paid to Flathead County ii. By the Municipality if applicable $6,094 was paid to the City of Kalispell iii. By the Schools $1,505 was paid to the schools E: Provide the approximate revenues received by each above taxing authority if the lots are reclassified, and when the lots are all improved and built upon. Describe any other taxes that would be paid by the subdivision and into what funds. Upon filing for final plat for the subdivision, the lot size and residential unit will be very similar to the lot size and unit found in the Ashley View Subdivision. The 2018 Real Estate Tax Bill for one of these lots stated a total of $2,394.78 was paid in taxes by the property owner. Given this similar lot size and type of construction built on the site, it can be rationalized that a similar sum will be paid by each property owner of Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision. Phase 1 and 2 have 113 single family lots proposed which would generate approximately $270,610 annually. The following gives a breakdown of the approximate dollar amount which will be paid by each lot owner of the proposed subdivision. County: $47,789 Municipality: $87,082 Schools: $135,224 The plat for the subdivision also includes 4 apartment properties slated for 276 dwelling units. This would be similar to the Meridian Point apartments in Kalispell. The 2018 Real Estate Tax Bill for one of these buildings stated a total of $12,970.89 was paid in taxes by the property owner. Phase 1 and 2 Page 19 have 11 apartments proposed which would generate approximately $142,279.79 annually. The following gives a breakdown of the approximate dollar amount which will be paid by each apartment building of the proposed subdivision. County: $2,405 Municipality: $5,768 Schools: $4,796 The plat for the subdivision also includes 14 commercial properties. Commercial properties are difficult to project the types of development which might occur and future tax revenue. To establish some basis, a development similar to the commercial property currently occupied by Starbucks on the north side of Kalispell will be the comparable. The 2018 Real Estate Tax Bill for one of these lots stated a total of $14,496.87 was paid in taxes by the property owner. Phase 1 and 2 have 14 commercial lots proposed which would generate approximately $202,956 annually. The following gives a breakdown of the approximate dollar amount which will be paid by each commercial lot owner of the proposed subdivision. County: $30,930 Municipality: $70,568 Schools: $101,417 F. Would new taxes generated from the subdivision cover additional public costs? Since there will be no need to increase staff or upgrade infrastructure upon completion of the subdivision, all new taxes generated should be sufficient to cover any additional public costs. G: How many special improvement districts would be created which would obligate local government fiscally or administratively? Are any bonding plans proposed that would affect the local government's bonded indebtedness? There is no new special improvement district created as part of this project. 4. Effects on the Historic or Natural Environment A: Describe and locate on a plat overlay or sketch map known or possible historic, paleontological, archaeological or cultural sites, structures, or objects that may be affected by the proposed subdivision. There are no known or possible historic paleontological, archaeological or cultural sites located on or near the property which would be affected by the development. B: How would the subdivision affect surface and groundwater, soils, slopes, vegetation, historical or archaeological features within the subdivision or on adjacent land? Describe plans to protect these sites. Page 110 i. Would any stream banks or lake shorelines be altered, streams rechanneled or any surface water contaminated from sewage treatment systems, run-off carrying sedimentation, or concentration of pesticides or fertilizers. The site is areas of flat ground bounded on some sides by steeper grades and slopes. Generally natural slopes will be maintained and any cut and fill operations will strive to balance earthwork quantities. Plant life on the site consists of grasses and farmed crops. A drawing showing all onsite and surrounding vegetation, location of nearby water ways, and location of steep slopes is provided in Appendix G. There is potential for runoff to contain lawn fertilizers however these concentrations are expected to be well below that of an agricultural use. In addition, water quality measures will be taken to reduce this pollutant load on any runoff. i. Would groundwater supplies likely be contaminated or depleted as a result of the subdivision? Sewer and water will be supplied by City of Kalispell. Sewage from the subdivision will be collected and discharged into the City sewer system. Therefore, there is no potential for sewage contamination of any surface or groundwater. As noted above, water for the subdivision will be supplied by City of Kalispell and not through individual wells. Therefore, depletion of groundwater as a result of this development is not likely. ii. Would construction of roads or building sites require cuts and fills on steep slopes or cause erosion on unstable, erodible soils? Would soils be contaminated by sewage treatment systems? Site design will strive to maintain reasonable slopes as close to existing as feasible. Any cut slopes will be properly stabilized. Furthermore, onsite soils are not highly erodible and road construction will not cause excessive destabilization of existing soils. As noted above sewage waste will be collected and discharged to the City of Kalispell system. The development has no planned onsite sewage treatment systems that could contaminate soils. M. Describe the impacts that removal of vegetation would have on soil erosion, bank, or shoreline instability. The closest waterway to the site is the Stillwater River located over 1,600 feet to the west. There are no sections of the river which cross any of the site boundaries, and there are no planned alterations to this waterway as part of the Eagle Valley Ranch development. As a result, vegetation removed will not destabilize any stream banks. The effort to minimize steep grades on the site decreases the potential for erosion upon removal vegetation. However, there is always erosion potential during and after construction if prevention measures are not taken. During construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be executed in which BMPs will be set in place to reduce erosion. Upon completion of the project, all exposed areas will be immediately stabilized and reseeded. iv. Would the value of significant historical, visual, or open space features be reduced or eliminated? Page 1 11 There are no historical, visual or open space features on or near the site. v. Describe possible natural hazards the subdivision could be subject to, e.g., natural hazards such as flooding, rock, snow or landslides, high winds, severe wildfires, or difficulties such as shallow bedrock, high water table, unstable or expansive soils, or excessive slopes. There is no part of the site located within the 100 year floodplain of the Stillwater River; therefore, flooding is not a likely hazard for the development. There are no steep hillsides or forests located on or directly adjacent to the site; therefore, landslides, avalanches and forest fires are of little risk. Expansive soils were not encountered during the geotechnical investigation; however, the groundwater table is 4.5-9 feet below surface. C. How would the subdivision affect visual features within the subdivision or on adjacent land? Describe anticipated efforts to visually blend the proposed development with the existing environment, e.g. use of appropriate building materials, colors, road design, underground utilities, and revegetation of earthworks. The residential units planned for the project can be classified as affordable housing. The structures, lot sizes, and landscaping will be similar in nature to the Ashley View Subdivision located Southern Kalispell. All utilities including sewer, water, gas, electric, and phone will be extended underground from the either Highway 93 or the Kalispell Northtown Center development. 5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat A: Describe what impacts the subdivision or associated improvements would have on wildlife areas such as big game wintering range, migration routes, nesting areas, wetlands, or important habitat far rare or endangered species. The area of the subdivision is designated as big game winter habitat by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Currently Montana Fish and Wildlife have 35.6% of the state is score 2 winter habitat and another 30% of the state is score 1 winter habitat. The current proposed development is in line with the city of Kalispell's growth plan and considering the relatively small size of the proposed development in reference to the size of the habitat in the flathead valley any impact will be minimal. B: Describe the effect that pets or human activity would have on wildlife. Housing and fences for pets will disrupt the use of this area for big animal winter range. 6. Effects on the Public Health and Safety A: Describe any health or safety hazards on or near the subdivision, such as natural hazards, lack of water, drainage problems, heavy traffic, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, high voltage power lines, or irrigation ditches. These conditions, proposed or existing, should be accurately described with their origin and location identified on a copy of the preliminary plat Page 112 There are no known health or safety hazards as described in the statement above. B: Describe how the subdivision would be subject to hazardous conditions due to high voltage lines, airports, highways, railroads, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, irrigation ditches, and adjacent industrial or mining uses. There are no known health or safety hazards as described in the statement above on or near the subdivision. C. Describe land uses adjacent to the subdivision and how the subdivision will affect the adjacent land uses. Identify existing uses such as feed lots, processing plants, airports or industrial firms that could be subject to lawsuits or complaints from residents of the subdivision. The land adjacent to the site consists of the following uses: to the west is the Highway 93 and a golf course which will not be adversely affected by the new development. To the south is the Kalispell North Town Center Development as well as the Army National Guard facility. Neither of these properties are anticipated to be adversely impacted by the new development. To the north is the Ponderosa Pines development, a residential subdivision. Ponderosa Pines will be buffered with open space lots on both the east and north property boundaries. Please see map on Appendix G for reference. D: Describe public health or safety hazards, such as dangerous traffic, fire conditions, or contamination of water supplies that would be created by the subdivision. There are no public health or safety hazards that would be created by the subdivision. PART III —COMMUNITY IMPACT REPORT Provide a community impact report containing a statement of estimated number of people coming into the area as a result of the subdivision, anticipated needs or the proposed subdivision for public facilities and services, the increased capital and operating cost to each affected unit of local government. Provide responses to each of the following questions and provide reference materials as required. 1. Education and Busing A: Describe the available educational facilities that would serve this subdivision. The subdivision is located within the Edgerton Elementary School district, and it is service by the Kalispell Middle School and Glacier High school. The City of Kalispell has grown in recent years and currently many of the schools are near or at capacity. However, large changes are planned to meet the needs of the growing student population. These changes include the new elementary school in South Kalispell and additions to the Middle school. Funds for these projects have already been Page 1 13 attained, and revenue collected from property taxes should be sufficient to cover the increased cost for each new student. B: Estimate the number of school children that will be added by the proposed subdivision. Provide a statement from the administrator of the affected school system indicating whether the increased enrollment can be accommodated by the present personnel and facilities and by the existing school bus system. If not, estimate the increased expenditures that would be necessary to do so. Based upon 2010 Census data, the average number of persons per house hold in Kalispell is 2.38. The percentage of children 18 years and younger for Kalispell is 25.1%. There are 113 single-family lots and 276 dwelling units in the apartment site in the Phases 1 and 2 of Eagle Valley Ranch subdivision, which mean that there will be approximately 926 total people with 232 people under the age of 18. 1f the ages of these students is distributed evenly among the grades K-12, in a given year there would be 97 new students attending Edgerton, Kalispell School District No. 75, 58 new students attending the Middle School, and 77 new students attending Glacier High School. 2. Roads and Maintenance A: Estimate how much daily traffic the subdivision, when fully occupied, will generate on existing streets and arterials. The traffic impact study dated June 19, 2018 estimated that an estimated 112 single-family lots would generate 204 trips per day and the 276 DU apartment site will generate 308 trips per day. B: Describe the capability of existing and proposed roads to safely accommodate this increased traffic. The primary access to the subdivision will be via Jefferson Boulevard and Rose Crossing to the south. The Rose Crossing intersection at US Highway 93 is planned for a future signal once the traffic warrants support one. The 2018 traffic impact study concluded that the "Eagle Valley Ranch development will not negatively affect traffic operations at any of the four study intersections". A secondary access will also be constructed to US Highway 93. This intersection will be a 3/ movement intersection primarily allowing for right -in and right -out traffic. C. Describe increased maintenance problems and increased cost due to this increase in volume. It is not anticipated that there will be an increase in the maintenance requirements to Jefferson Boulevard or Rose Crossing due to the fact that both roads are not yet operating at full capacity. However, there will be additional maintenance and cost to the City since there will be 7710' of new City right-of-way upon completion of the project. D: Describe proposed new public or private access roads including: i. Measures for disposing of storm run-off from streets and roads. Page 114 Storm water runoff will surface flow and be collected in curb inlets and piped to one of proposed detention areas at the south end of the site. Detention will be either surface ponds or below grade storage and will hold excess storm water until it can be released at pre - development rates into the Kalispell Northtown Center storm sewer system. A new storm drain discharge pipe is planned to be extended up to Eagle Valley Ranch from KNTC. This mimics the current natural flow of storm water south off the site. ii. Type of road surface and provisions to be made far dust. All new roads within the boundary of the Subdivision will be asphalt. Similarly, all driveways to the residences will be concrete. By paving all driving surfaces, the potential for dust generation will be minimal. iii. Facilities for streams or drainage crossing (e.g. culverts, bridges). There are no planned stream or drainage crossings as part of this project iv. Seeding of disturbed areas. All exposed, disturbed areas will be stabilized and landscaped or reseeded upon completion of the subdivision construction. Residential lots and City boulevard will be landscaped with plantings, trees and sod. The open spaces used for storm water retention will be re -seeded with native grasses in accordance with Flathead County regulations. E. Describe the closing or modification of any existing roads. There will be no road closures of existing streets during the construction of the project. F: Explain why road access was not provided within the subdivision, if access to any individual lot is directly from arterial streets or roads. This question is not applicable to the Subdivision, since access to each lot will be to a local road, not an arterial. G: Is year-round access by conventional automobile over legal rights -of -way available to the subdivision and to all lots and common facilities within the subdivision? Identify the owners of any private property over which access to the subdivision will be provided. Year-round access by conventional automobile over legal right of way will be available to the subdivision from by two accesses to the development: directly to US Highway 93 and through KNTC via Jefferson Boulevard and Rose Crossing. Similarly, year-round access over legal right-of-way to each individual lot of the subdivision will be available by the combination of local roads proposed in the development. H. Estimate the cost and completion date of the system, and indicate who will pay the cost of installation, maintenance and snow removal. The estimated completion date of all work within the subdivision right-of-way including roads, sidewalk, and boulevard is anticipated for November 2019 and the cost is estimated to be $2,280,000. Cost of Page 1 15 installation for all of the subdivision infrastructure will be paid for by the developer. The cost for all road maintenance and snow removal upon final plat of the subdivision will be paid for by the City of Kalispell. 3. Water, Sewage, and Solid Waste Facilities A. Briefly describe the water supply and sewage treatment systems to be used in serving the proposed subdivision, e.g. methods, capacities, locations. New city water and sanitary sewer mains will be constructed in the development. Water mains will be connected to existing water in Jefferson Boulevard and looped through the subdivision, reconnecting to City water in US Highway 93. Sanitary sewer will be connected to an existing City main in US Highway 93 right-of-way. There will be no new municipal wastewater treatment or new public water supply system needed to supplement the current City of Kalispell infrastructure due to an increase in demand from the subdivision. B. Provide information an estimated cost of the system, who will bear the costs, and how the system will be financed. The estimated cost for all utility work is estimated to be $990,000. Cost of installation for all of the subdivision infrastructure will be paid for by the developer. The cost for all road maintenance and snow removal upon final plat of the subdivision will be paid for by the City of Kalispell. C. Where hook-up to an existing system is proposed, describe estimated impacts on the existing system, and show evidence that permission has been granted to hook up to the existing system. Water needs will be met through extension of a new water main extension from Jefferson Boulevard which will loop back to US Highway 93. It has been confirmed with the City that the existing system has capacity to meet these demands. This is also in conformance with expansion plans identified in Kalispell's Water System Facility Plan. A single sewer main will be extended into the subdivision from US Highway 93. The capacity of this main has also been verified with the City. D. All water supply and sewage treatment plans and specifications will be reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and should be submitted using the appropriate DEQ application form. All new sewer and water main plans will be sent to Montana DEQ for approval. E. Describe the proposed method of collecting and disposing of solid waste from the development. Solid waste collection and disposal service is available from either Evergreen Disposal or the City of Kalispell. Page 1 16 F. If use of an existing collection system or disposal facility is proposed indicate the name and location of the facility. Solid waste collection and disposal service is available from either Evergreen Disposal or the City of Kalispell. 4. Fire and Police Protection A. Describe the fire and police protection services available to the residents of the proposed subdivision including number of personnel and number of vehicles or type of facilities for: Fire protection -- is the proposed subdivision in an existing fire district? If not, will one be formed or extended? Describe what fire protection procedures are planned? Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision will be located within the City of Kalispell Fire District. Municipal fire hydrants will be placed on all new roads in the subdivision at a minimum spacing of 300 feet. Residential structures will not be sprinklered. However, apartment units and commercial buildings will have fire suppression systems. A secondary access into the subdivision is being constructed which will allow the number of single-family lots to exceed 30 lots. ii. Low Enforcement protection —is the proposed subdivision within the jurisdiction of a County Sheriff or municipal policy department? The subdivision is located under the jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell Police Department. e: Can the fire and police protection service needs of the proposed subdivision be met by present personnel and facilities? If not, describe the additional expenses that would be necessary to make these services adequate, and who would pay the costs? There is no foreseeable increase in the needs of both the Kalispell police and fire department to service the Eagle Valley Ranch Estates residents. As a result, there will be no increase in required funding for either agency. Page 117 5. Parks and Recreation Facilities A. Describe park and recreation facilities to be provided within the proposed subdivision and other recreational facilities that will serve the subdivision. With a total of 389 dwelling units being developed on Phase 1 and Phase 2, there will be a requirement for 11.67 acres of park land based on 0.03 acres per DU. Phase 1 and 2 will dedicate _ acres of open space, some of which will be improved with a bike path. Although some of the improved open space may meet park land requirements, it is anticipated that the developer will pay cash in -lieu to Kalispell Parks and Recreation to fulfill the full requirement of dedicating 0.03 acres per dwelling unit or cash equivalent to park land. B. List other parks and recreation facilities or sites in the area and their approximate distance from the site. Northern Pines Golf Course is located adjacent to US Highway 93, directly west of the subdivision. C. If cash -in -lieu of parkland is proposed, state the purchase price per acre or current market value (values stated must be no more than 12 months old). The total market value as shown on the MT cadastral is $207,449. 6. Payment for Extension of Capital Facilities A. Indicate how the sub divider will pay for the cost of extending capital facilities resulting from expected impacts directly attributable to the subdivision. No capital facilities extension are anticipated. Page 1 18 Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment f_l:1»►1111:9-11 Site Location & Topographic Survey VNVMbVg i13dsn" 8 S9NIalOH NVI'dVdS F-a NOISIAlciang HDNdN AIIIVA 319V3 � „ N N W r oT c g ao r a Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX B Flood Surface Water Map VNV1NOVV'113dSill" SDNI(110H NViUVdS NOISIAIMIS HONVU AIIIVA 319V: it I LL, u < L2- cr ul 0 0 0 LL Ea le ValleV Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX C National Wetlands Inventory T— (D Cl) CY3 � � � U � cu � � (D cu CY) cu w af= ¢/ {\\\ \\ )()) )/ g[]7 I � [ � E2 )| o�$ a) )�E\2 / _J!§a \c 4$\§ A�`�2I. \)72\ z l'n rA2±ƒ n F-I ❑ \CL 2 3 \ @ e d \ 0 2 7 m m E (D \ \ / d LU 2 R z � Eagle ValleV Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX D Geotechnical Borings q ---� 20C1111 0 _'— ' 200y d Project: OlacierValle,, Village Job dumber: 06-2_7 Kalispell. h1�3rltana ©ate_ �ptember ?3, 2006 „ Site Plan Enuhieerin„. Inc. KaMpelt. NIT BORING LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT: Gatevvy Properties. Inc, DATE: July 21, 2006 LOCATION: N. 40 Acres, NAG' Corner ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt METHOD: llollow-stem Auger /GIN: � 8.7 7-25-06 �— L91r1f(2): B-1 fil=ir__'7 f:lx-vs Lvllr. SdEsvc.. .. L+:h: rhi nl_��•'a�,um, " a m Q a K < " = LU ZE La " cn MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST RESULT'S Plastic Limit I ------ L- uid Limit w Water Content = (percent) N-values A (Blows per foot) 50 fiU 70 80 9 10 _ 2 30 4 1 S-t Sa2 0.0 1,2 r ,+ „.+ I , f _ SILT; stiff, moist, abundant ogptnics, dark brown (TOPSOIL) �a — -1 Silty GLAD'; stiff; moist, t1linly bedded to laminated, gray, pinkish brown and brown - 10 15 .- 20 25 30 35 1 S-3 5-4 15.7 Gravelly SILT with Sand; very stiff. subancular to subround gravel, grayish brown 7 w - Bottom of Boring B-I !tr� 15.7 ft. - ' Diclmeter per/orured PVC pipe inv otled to 1 d.?' for periculic Kr c7rrr7f�Hurrr meu,rur�rarenl�. Figure 1A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village - PROJECT ND.: 06-227 CLIENT; Gatewav Properties, Inc. DATE: _ _July 24, 2006 LOCATION: N. 40 Acres, NE Garner ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schillidt B-2 METHOD: Hollow -stem Auer GW: -'u; 4.5' 7-24-06 .v --- GW(2): rle.,x.,p TEST RESULTS �m D. 3 o MATERIAL DESCRIPTIOf� Plastic Llinit L- ----t �►quld Limit Water Content ri (pervert) �101 N w ° N-values A (Btovrs per foot) 20 30 40 60 70 80 9tl 0.0 SILT; medium stiff-, Taoist, abundant organics, dark brown ;;,,.- lJJJ (TOPSOIL) _ S-1 20 ;; poorly Graded Sr U with Silt; loose, moist, fine grained -A.- sand, brown 5-2 4-2 Silty CIIAS", nlediuin stiff to stiff, moist, thinly bedded to -"I . 5 1 laminated, grav, pinkish brown and brueti� — Interbedded with silt and sand lavers -- i To heave in augers at 14.2 ft due t0 sand layer S I I scattered gravels below 15 ft I L I 4 - i S-4 loe¢. _ — i 15t o� r I - -- -- I o 9 - tl - 20 a 20.7 Bottom of Boring B-2 20.7 ft. V ■ F _ C P - 30 - a — r3 Ftaure 2A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT. Gateway Properties, Inc. DATE: July 24, 2006 LOCATION: NT. 40 Acres. SW Corner ELEVATION: - DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY; Jeff Schmidt— METHOD' Hollow -stem Auer GW: e- CW(2):Uj B-3 Ftk x•.,,: (3i�:i 1":itl� k511:nt Oy Pnnlni o:gn.,nn6 i" m w w h yr ❑ -� a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit Liquid Urnit V+latercontent (percent) N-values L (Bfows per foal) 20 30 40 54 .0 .70 80 _90 n10 _g 3-1 5-2 o.o ,-.ss. SILT; medium stiff, nwist, abundant organics, dark brow-n SILT with Sand to Sandy SILT, inedium stiff, moist, fine grained sand, bi-Qwn, roil tends to coarsen with depth - NI - 10 1c5 20 25 30 35 S-3 S-4 7 15.8 + 01-avelly SILT with Sand; Stiff to vely stiff subanaular to- subr'ound gravel, gi,ayi-qh bi-own — — .2 -A- — Bottom tit' Boring B-3 15.8 ft. Grurinchi,ater riot encouivered Figure 3A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT: Gate -way Properties, Inc. GATE: July 24, 2006 LOCATION: N. 40 Acres, SE Corner on [-Lill ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keek Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff -Schmidt METHOD: Hollow-stet►a Auger GW: T FA; ilr??7 fau .Yi11n illu� I1L.e Pi iiilnf 7.31,•_IyIR _ __ - — _ _ -- N o TEST RESULTS h" W a "' oW MATERIAL DESCRIPTION PlasticUrnit ! ----- —I Liquid imit W u� W rn Water Content `:: (percent) y Wvalues • (Blows per foot) to _20 so 4a 5o sa 70 a0 Bo 0 t S-1 0-� { f ? �, SILT; medium stiff, damp, abundant organics, dark brown t-0 (T01WIL) - - SILTwith Sand to Sandy SILT; mcdikim stiff, damp, fine grained sand, brown, soil tends to coarsen witli depth S-2 4.2 = i i Silty SAND: loose, damp, fine grained r- 5 S-3 10 6-4 -15- - 15.6=: Silty CLAY; medium Stitt to stilt, moist, thinly bedded to I 1 laminated. gray, pinkish bm',+gin and brown I Interbedded with silt and sand layers 20 I i 2D.7- Bottom of Boring B-4 20.7 fl. - y' ! h 25 , 1 i -• 1 1 ' 30 9 , - 35 Groan&vater mot e�icozmtered Fiqure 4A PAGE 1 of 1 IN L BORCLIENT: PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 Gateway Properties, Inc. DATE: July 24, 2006_ LOCATION: N. 40 Acres, S_ We near Center ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt METHOD: Hollow -stem Auger GW: r 9,0 7-25-06 GV11(2}: � T B_5 Fdc i�,-?V fil--n VAId VAL— I)�ir Puuirsl a�'B�'r[n a w A N N Q y iL a� Uj oa u7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit r Fiquidur,it Water Gantent "� (percent) N-values ■ (SlO%rs per Foot) 90 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 SILT: stiff, moist, abundant organics, dart: brown ("101'S0I L)2.0 - - ..•. 5 8-2 s-3 S-4 I I �i I 00 ? s ' Silty CLAY, stiff, moist, thinly bedded to laminated, gray, pinkish brown and I)rQwn Interbedded with sill and silt; sated layers below 10 ft saturated belo%e , 9 ft I r - --- -- — _ --- -- - — - 20 - 25 30 35 S-5 0 20.7 SILT Frith Grave[; nicditun slif�, sulranpular to suhround gravel, grayish brown _ Bottom of Boring B-5? 20.7 ft. ?" Diumerer perforated P F'c' pipe insrulled rcr 19.0' jur perirklic groundwater nreasurenrerrrs. Figure 5A PAGE I of 1 PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 BORING � LOG CLIENT: Gatewny properties. Inc. DATE: July 24, 2006 LOCATION: S. 40 Acres. NW Corner ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keere Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt B-6 METHOD; H llow-stein Auger GW: � 15.0 7-24-06- GW(2): — TEST RESULTS N W m n w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION PIaslic Limit i - -� Liquid Limit Water Content 0 (percent) N•values L (Blows per foot) 90 20 30 0 50 80 70 80 90 0 S-1 0.0 SILT; stiff, moist, abundant organics, dark brown J JJaJJ {'fCIWIL) .. SILT; stiff; moist, gray _ Interbedded with 2 to 6" Sandy Silt layers 5-2 5 n I I - 1 1 1 ' S-4 14.2 I Siinr CLAY; medium stiff to stiff, moist. thinly bedded to 15 laminated, gray, pinkish brown and brown 15 i Interbedded with silt and sand lavers SILT with Gravel; medium stiff to stiff; vet}Y moist to a saturaited subangular to subround gravel, grayish brown a A 20 S-5 5, 20.7 Bottom ol` Boring B-6 (ci- 20.7 ft. n u Q Yi 0 25 N N 0 w e 0 u 30 ,4 1,4 G w - -- Figure 6A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village -- PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT: Gateway Properties, Inc. DATE: July 24, 2006 LOCATION- S. 40 Acres. NE Corner ELEVATION: Bw, DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling -Steve -- LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger GW: ma 'e.?+i!{I:!'IP Valtn-V f7n1_ Pfinicd'j']8•jIll' 1- ---- — - TEST RESULTS �►Plastic Omit Uquid LImIt a 4 a v a- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION F "- —� w U1 . rq Water Conlent 0 (percent) n u N-values w (Bbv4 per foot) D 2 30 AO 50 60 ao 90 0 10 T5-1 S-2 S 3 fJ,� 0.8 ;;YYls ' SILT, medium stiff. damp, abundant organics, dark brown (TOPSOIL) - - Sandy SII.;1 and Silty SANG; loose_ damp to moist, fine grained sand, brawn, sail tends to coarsen with depth - -• _ (;1 -- 1 - 20 25 I I 4 I 1 i 30 Y 1 1 i 5 T 3-4 13.0 1 7 - Silty GRAVEL with Sand, very dense, subangular to subround gravel, scattered cobbles and boulders, grayish brawn „ — Bottom or Borim, B-7 tot 15.7 rt. — - — — - Grvu►achrater not encountered igure 7A PAGE 1 of 1 PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 BORING ... LOG CLIENT: Ciatewa r Pro rties, Inc. DATE: __ July 24, 2006 -- LOCATION: S. 40 Acres, Center � ELEVATION. DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve DOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt B"8 METHOD: lJollow-stern Auger GW: File. rr_327iileei=r 4". ll ulr. — - -- TEST_ RESULTS a i a_ a a ui N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Plastic Limit tlquid Limit waterContent t=3 (percent) Fro,— N-values • (Blows Per foot) 10 20 sa 40 s0 e) 70 8a sa S 1 0.0a,-,r. SILT' stiff, damp, abtmdatlt organics, dark brown 1.4 (TOPS011.)_ - S1LT with Sand; stiff, (hoist, fine grained sand, brown — - S-2 4•2 Silty CLAY; inedium stiff to stiff, moist, thinly bedded to 1 -5laminated, gray, pinl:i;h hro�4�n and broN�'n I Interbedded with silt and sand layers very moist to saturated below 14 ft S-5 10 01 _- z o l a S-4 01 i 15 - Y 15.7 Bottom of Burins R-8 60 15.7 R. —. e a K M 20 H 0 0 >i rl " 25 M 0 3 — u o n w Grounchvafer mil encountered Fiaure 8A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley- Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT: Gateway Properties. Inc. DATE: July 25, 2006 LOCATION: S. 40 Acres, SW Comer ELEVATION: ^ DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Save LOGGED BY: Joshua Smith METHOD: Hollow -stem Auger G1N: -- _ GW(Z): B-9 Fib Ur 111 film U.Al V'Am- nei pri —j V-261...- s . F = o w x r V JUjPlastic o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST RESULTS Limit t - --. --� ---� Liquid Limit Water Content � (percent) 4 N-Alatues ► (Blows per (oat} 10 20 30 40 50 40 74 80 90 a S-1 0.0 `,�v:y ; iJf1J SILT, stiff, dainP, abundant organics, dark brown (TOPSOIL-) 5 f5 .- 20 25 30 35 S-2 3-3 5-4 5-6 2.0 4,2 201 SILT with Sand; stiff, moist, bite grained sand, brown s 11 1 i I l 1 i I 1l I ! Silty CLAY; stiff, moist. thinly bedded to laminated, gray, Pinkish brown and brown Interbedded wit $ilt and sand 1;3}'ers very moist (o saturated below 13 h soft to medium stiff below IS it _ f - ' Bottom of Baring B-9 20.7 ft. - Crrrnnfd+rater not eercountered,, Figure 9A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT: Gateway Properties, Inc. DATE: July 25, 2006 T LOCATION: S. 40 Acres. SE Corner ELEVATION., DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Joshm Smith -1 - METHOD: Hollow -stem Auger GW: _ -- CW(2): ?� r;i_ 1:..r7 rt«c•rs'a1�S`� • a:. r��.<i a:,x.,ara -- - - -- TEST RESULTS a m LU o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION pla3tiCLimit Liquid Limit o Y y o Water convent Pq (Parcent) N-values A (Blo" per foot) 1.0 0 30 40 50 60 74 ao 90 I 0 S-t 0,6 SILT; stiff, damp, abundant organics, dark brown 1.0 (TOPSOIL) - — i SILT with Sand to Sanely SILK'; stiff, moist, fine grained a sand. brown - d 3 g S-2 - t, - o - a $ Silty CLAY, medium stiff to stiff, moist, thinly bedded to i tlS-3 I laminated, gray, pinkish brown and brownin �a Interbedded with silt and sand layers _ 7_I -- very moist to saturated below 14 ft a 15ZA- C i fl _ b 20 S-5 u A 20.8 i Bottom of Boring B-10 m 20.8 f(. - t} 25 - s u 6 F4 - v 0 _ u 4 R 30 D -- w C - 4 -35 Grvunchi-titer not encouRtered. Figure 1QA PAGE 1 of 1 Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX E MT Fish & Wildlife Checklist 1. Fish & Wildlife Inforniation Checklist Purpose and Use This form is intended to help the subdivision applicant identify important fish and wildlife species and their habitats on or near the property of interest. FWP encourages the subdivider to complete the form at the earliest stage of project planning, before making any site location and design decisions. Consultation with local FWP biologists is strongly advised at this early stage. Other professionally trained biologists may, of course, also be consulted. FWP biologists are encouraged to review the completed Checklist for accuracy: Subdividers should not expect FWP to complete the form for them. The local government may wish to utilize this form in its subdivision process. The form can be modified to reflect locally important fish and wildlife resources. Additional sheets may be attached as necessary to provide more complete information. Owner of Record: Spartan Holdings, LLC Legal Description of Project Location: SW114 of Section 19, T28N, R21W Signature and Date of Owner or Owner Representative: Comments: Commenter Signature & Date: Habitat Yes No Maybe If Ye.s or.Maybe' Identify q .rce(s) of Ct Describe Habitat Informattall Project is 1. Flathead County G1S within 300 feet of a water 2. US Fish and Wildlife bode andlor X its associated riparian area. 1. MT FWP Projed is in one or more big game X whiter ,ranges. Project could It pact FVVF" s 1. Flathead County GIS ability to use public hunting as a 2. MT FWP wildlife .Management X tool on the she andinr within a one - mile radius. Habitat Yes No Maybe If Yes or -ybe, Id.OntifYSource(s) o Factors e Habitat It formats n project Is in MT. FWP an area with a high or potentially x Dishlevel of Hinman/bear Conflict (black or grizzly bear). Project is in one or mere Patch size not greater than 25 native grass - .land or native shrub habitat patches (patch size �- 25 x acres). Project is MT FWP within 500 feet of Common Loom a4sting x site, acres Habitat des No Maybe If Yes or Maybe; 1 e` nt. fySoufteW. P.f Faclors Describe llabitav Ififtirination MT FWP project '16 Witliiti $O feet of Great Blue Hewn x Peking site, project is E MT FWP within 1, feet of Trumpeter Swat oesiing x or over- Wintering site, i i �I i Project is MT FWP i within 1,000 � feet of tang_ billed Curlew X nesting site. Project is � MT FWP Within 1,000 feet of j owl. nesting site. Habitat Yes No Maybe [f Yes or Maybe, Identify Sourre(s) of Factors Descdbe Flabitat Inf{jPll at](111 Project is MT FWP within 1 i mile of bald Eagle x nesting site. Project i�-; MT FWP within''z mile of Golden Eagle nesting X site, Project is MT FWP within �-. mile of Ferruginogg x Hawk nesti ng kite. Project is MT FWP w thin t.4 inZle of Peregrine Falcon x besting, site. Project is MT FWP within 3 miles of Greater sage=G r1 wqe x lek, .I abita't Yes No Ma �e If Yes or Ma p, Identifyo urce(s) of factors Describe Rat. 3nf€�rr�aiiar� Project 6 MT FWP W lthiri 2 miles of Sharp- X toned Grou-5e ICL MT FWP I'rc�je�t i wi Ebro the range of other Species of Cortern. X Project is ill MT FWP other ir.portAnt habitat (cPg ,, upland game x bird h,abltatF or agricultural lands that are soasonally used by rni;ratvey waterfowl). M. Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX F NRCS Soils Map ! _ .aetTT CL $ mz=tTT L, ■ � | co m � § ƒ § �\ !§ co §\ f } § ( G \ � § / \ ) © e 3 ! a t � k g ) f� 2 p \ � a _ 2 \ k k� g2 Q z k to » C m C O N = Q U m Q iv rt, } Nill J N JQ L N L.L LU 0 [D as Q O V) OHO p 41 V N! ul -C R`7 (d dl Z I{ d' C O M Q U O C33 O N C 10 O C aai E 0 v `�' � o r � La Q w �� m G. O C 7 N -O V O N O R E rn -0 N . O ng1i m r°i N �' ID a`"i ¢ 3 N N c aNi> Z ao ; oE�o Q a U a�a--5m Q mN o qai ro 3 E -0� Q .- � U) j 'n a E2 V,-0 o w Cc) 'I 0 �, v A d01 G chi L Gm CL (,an C E 2` m lL Z o uOr y O a>comm .0 E-5 O = w v aaEo y N Ec`°i m a�i 7 t/f U w U) v % CL - -y -a m � o `m'` a . ro p a ma d o N 7 '- L 2 caw N n °� o 3 Q U O J7 V) N O.0 0 N ld N 4 U C Q-N td •� N 41 +O• I6 cGa o a C 7. Q N }., O a W Q CD C o 41 Z� Q1 fR !9 La o �r C 7 c 0 Q }' N N m 7 0 N oa am N N p .N 7. N it Cn O O O C U a O N c N 7 N 0 0 Z Q aG N (� a W o O O N N U �� t:zN.� C y CL cm O Q� d O L N O O N Q} 'Q p 0 0 0 n N U LO O N U N L, L — O 7 - O O .0., N N tEl E O L a E ¢ V- o cncn (0r ❑N U. to � N y ii ° U t a ) C C m ° = N m m m D rn ° N d c � a J m �U E ym-• m .�, o O t � U) in � 7 O co m 3 uJ O K 5 m J ¢ ❑ LLI m LL 0 m W J y a a a C ° a � a l ul m ° a ° a a Z m :? m c c C a c o a m a a n a a ychi n o En n n 2 CL v`)a O m m tov L o G�l xQ o Y m ca UtL (UaQ0 Q U) U] '0 m 0 m U p U t7 C7 J J M n d K U) m U.) U) U) M O U7 to a 0 7CL 1 4 CO co O O h N M O N ca Q m Z Z)6 m 2 § § 2 § ZR § ) § §[ k k � k �? �2�— \k Mk \ \k §! Op 2 2I k )( )� )�{§ { © '2 m �G {! k ƒ �2 #E ;f ;-,5 , 7 F=rn 0. I0I / \ G . � ■ a 3In �« r r §k /0 Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX G Vegetation & Land Use Map VNVINOW i13dSfIV71 1� S9NIGIOH NVAVdS NOISIAI(lonS HDNVU A311VA 319V3 E tirnn q ., m W Q 3 do n � rr 1f C/1 0 } co z 0 F- LLJ Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX H Hazard Map VNVINM 'll36SIIVx _ SDN1(I1bH NVibVdS NOISIAloanS H:)NVII A311VA 31DV3 r. -Y u Q Z V - �0< �7ai dr�� L > CO II In w 0 Q W i7 £6 A Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment APPENDIX I Cut/Fill Drawing ti a VNV1NOVU '113d511VX � SJNIQIOH NVEMS W A NOISIAI49(1S H:)NVU A31IVA 31DV3 '° r m3S� 4 r V YI II LU I � Y I � I I t II I e I T I LLI r = z LU i I � I Ul I 11 � I I it ! I II I f I + I !I I I II I I If I ! fl _} I _ f ,k$$1opeside Engineering November 30, 2018 Jackola Engineering and Architecture PO Box 1134 Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Geotechnical Consultation Eagle Valley Ranch Kalispell, Montana Dear Mr. Jeff Walla, At your request, Slopeside Engineering, LLC (Slopeside), is providing geotechnical consultation services for the Eagle Valley Ranch project in Kalispell, Montana. Personnel from Slopeside previously provided a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for this property while working for CMG Engineering, Inc. The reportwas titled, "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Glacier Valley Village, Kalispell, Montana, CMG Job No. 06-227," and was dated September 28, 2006. The report was completed for Gateway Properties, Inc., and included the majority of the Eagle Valley Ranch property. Discussions with the Project Team indicate similar development is planned for the site as is discussed in the previous report. In addition, we understand additional borings are planned for the portion of the property not included in the original report. Observations of the site throughout the last 12 years indicate minimal site grading and changes have occurred on the site, with the exception of agricultural farming. In addition, we do not anticipate the soils and groundwater information presented in the report have been appreciably altered. In our opinion, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation completed by CMG Engineering skslop esideeng@gmail.com 406-270-3480 181 Deerfoot Trail xKalispell, MT, 59901 Eagle Valley Ranch - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC for the subject property can be relied upon for site assessment and planning purposes. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation is attached to this letter for convenience. Please contact Slopeside Engineering, LLC, if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter or our recommendations. Sincerely, JOSHUACOYNE SMITH No.15675 PE •�`��NALE�G Joshua Smith, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Page 2 of 2 CIVIG Engineering, Inc. M G P.O.Box 5159 1075 Trumbte Creek Rd„ Unit E Kalispell, MT 59903-5159 N, 3- g Office.- 406-257-8156 Fax: 406-257-8179 September 28, 2006 Gateway Properties. Inc. PG Box 8776 Kalispell, MT 59904 Attention: Mr. Earl Holbeck Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Glacier Valley Village Kalispell, Montana CMG Job No. 06-227 At your request, CMG Engineering, Inc. (CMG) has conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Glacier Valley Village Development in Kalispell, Montana. The Site Plan, Figure 1, shows the general location of the site. The investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface materials, conditions at the site, and develop general recommendations regarding suitability of the subsurface soils for development. The investigation included a review of existing subsurface information for the site vicinity, subsurface explorations, field and laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. This report describes the work accomplished and provides our conclusions and general recommendations for use in the preliminary design and feasibility studies for the proposed project. CMG has strived to perform the investigation and develop recommendations in a manner consistent with the degree of rare that is presently standard to the geotechnical engineering profession. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site consists of two, approximately 40 acre parecls, near US Hwy 93 and across the highway from the Big Mountain Golf Club, north of Kalispell, Montana. The 80 acre site is in the shape of reverse diamond. The north 40 acre parcel borders US Hwy 93 and the southeast corner of the north 40 acres adjoins the northwest corner of the south 40 acres, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The proposed site is bordered by residential construction, US Hwy 93, commercial buildings, and agricultural fields. The location of the site and surrounding properties are shown on the Site PIan, Figure 1. Based on discussions with you, we understand it is desirable to develop the property with infrastructure including underground utilities, asphaltic concrete paved roads, and we assume a mixture of residential and commercial structures. We anticipate utility construction could Glacier Valle} Village CMG Htigineering laic. extend to a depth of about 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface, and site fills could be up to about 10 feet thick. We understand the proposed structures will consist of one-, two- and possibly three - level structures. SITE DESCRIPTION General The project site is reverse diamond -shaped and borders US Hwy 93 to the west, residential construction to the north, and agricultural fields to the east and south. The newly constructed Kalispell Armory is just south of this site. The site is relatively flat with gently sloping hills along the east side of the north 40 acres and the north side of the south 40 acres. The site has been historically used for agricultural purposes, Fill material was not observed on the site. We also understand prior development has not occurred on the site. Topography Review of the available topographic maps from the US Geological Survey indicate the site is relatively flat and near elevation 3,040 ft with the hills, as mentioned previously, extending up to elevations of about 3,080 ft. Geology The project site lies in the Rocky Mountain Trench bounded by the Salish Mountains to the West and Swazi Range to the East. The trench was traversed by the Flathead Glacier and was covered by substantial areas of glacial lakes during recession of the ice mass. The surficial geology of the area consists of silts and sands deposited by glacial lakes overlying glacial till soils consisting of silty gravel with large cobbles and boulders that were deposited during glaciation of the area.. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Subsurface materials and conditions at the site were investigated on July 24 and 25, 2006, with ten borings, designated 13-1 through 13-10. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from about 15.7 to 20.8 ft. Piezometers consisting of 2-inch diameter PVC pipe with the lower 5 ft screened to allow for water infiltration were constructed in Borings 13-1 and B-5. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 1. A detailed discussion of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs completed for this investigation are provided in Appendix A. Logs of the borings are provided in Appendix A on Figures IA through I QA, Sails The site has been historically used for agricultural purposes and a 0.9 to 2.0 ft topsoilicultivated zone was encountered at the ground surface. The borings indicate the soils beneath the topsoil and cultivated zone are lakebed deposits consisting of interbedded layers of silt with varying percentages of sand and silty clay, underlain by stiff to very stiff silt with varying percentages of gravel. For the purpose of discussion, the materials and soils disclosed by the borings have been grouped into the following categories: Page 2 Glacier Valley Village C141G Engineering, Inc. 1. TOPSOIL 2. SILT and SAND 3. Silty CLAY 4. SILT with Gravel X, TOPSOIL. All borings advanced for this project encountered topsoil at the ground surface. The topsoil generally consists of dark brown silt with abundant organics and roots. Standard Penetration Test (SP'T) know counts of 7 to 19 indicate the topsoil is medium stiff to very stiff. Moisture contents range from 4 to 21 percent. The topsoil thickness ranges from 9 to 24 inches thick with an average thickness of about 18 inches. 2. SILT and SAND. Silt with varying percentages of sand, and sand with varying percentages of silt were encountered beneath the topsoil layer in all boring except 13-1 and B-5. The silt and sand soils generally contain intermittent layers of sandy silt and silty sand, and extend to depths ranging; from 4.2 f. to 16 ft deep. The sand is generally fine grained and the relative consistency of the silt soils range from medium stiff to stiff and the sand soils are generally loose to medium dense, based on SPT blow counts of 4 to 16 blows per foot. Moisture contents of representative samples range from 5 to 30 percent with the moisture contents typically increasing with depth. The silt and sand soils are generally underlain by silty clay or silt with gravel soils. 3. Silty CLAY. Light gray, brown, and pinkish silty clay was encountered Beneath the topsoil or silt and sand layers in all borings except B-3 and B-7. The depth to the top of the silty clay layer ranges between 1.2 to 15.6 ft. The silty clay is a lakebed deposit and is varved with interbedded layers of lean clay and fine grained sand. This deposit generally exhibits increased shear strength values in the upper 10 to 15 ft due to years of wetting and drying. The relative consistency of this soil unit tends to decrease with depth as the moisture content increases_ N-values of 3 to 35 blows per ft indicate the consistency ranges from soft to hard. Moisture contents of representative samples range from 14 to 32 percent. Borings B-2, B-4, 13-8, B-9, and B-10 were terminated in this soil unit at depths of 15.7 to 20.8 ft. 4. SILT with Gravel. Silt with varying percentages of gravel was encountered beneath the silt, sand and silty clay layers in Borings B-1, B-3, B-5, B-6, and B-7. The silt with gravel soils were encountered at depths ranging from 6.5 to 16.0 ft below the ground surface. Cobbles and boulders were not encountered within this layer during drilling operations; however, we anticipate they are present and should be anticipated when excavating into this layer. In addition, rock fragments larger than 3 ft maximum size are common in this soil unit and may be encountered in large cut areas or during; utility construction. SN' blow counts ranging from 4 blows per foot to 50 blows for 4 inches indicate the silt with gravel soils are soft to hard. Blow counts typically range from 11 to 25 blows per foot, indicating stiff to very stiff soils. Moisture contents range from 2 to 15 percent. Borings B-1, B-3, B-5, B-6, and B-7 were terminated in this soil unit at depths of 15.7 to 20.7 ft. Groundwater Groundwater was observed in most explorations completed for this project, depending on the elevation of the boring. The highest groundwater depths observed were in the low lying areas Page 3 Glacier Valley Village CMG Engineering, Inc. and were about 4.5 to 9 ft below the ground surface. We anticipate the groundwater level rises and falls in response to rainfall and snowmelt. Numerous other factors may contribute to groundwater fluctuations and occurrence of seepage,. evaluation of these factors requires special study that is beyond the scope of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on discussions with you at the time of this investigation, we understand the proposed development will consist of numerous lots with sanitary sewer lines, water lines, and asphaltic concrete paved roadways. Typical lot development will consist of one- to two-story structures with three-story structures, possible. We anticipate minimal cuts, and fills up to possibly 10 ft in height may be planned for this development. In our opinion, the site soils are suitable for development; however; due to the relatively low near surface moisture contents, significant moisture conditioning ofthe near surface soils will be necessary to achieve adequate compaction. In addition, groundwater should be anticipated in some utility trench excavations. Site Preparation The near surface sails encountered during our subsurface investigation consist primarily of cultivated silts and topsoil. The cultivated silt and topsoil will need to be removed in all areas of site grading, roadway, sidewalk areas, or other settlement sensitive areas prior to commencement of work. The silt soils can be placed over the lots as topsoil, following mass grading. The soils near the ground surface consist of moisture sensitive fine grained soils with little cohesion. As a result, these soils can be easily disturbed and strength diminished during construction, particularly in relatively high moisture content areas and where surface water is allowed to pond. Therefore, positive site drainage is of critical importance to both construction and long -terns performance of the proposed development. Based on our observations during drilling, it appears the groundwater level is relatively high in the low lying areas near the northeast corner of the site. Surface diversion and seepage cutoff systems should be considered necessary and will assist in maintaining the undisturbed foundation soils in these areas during foundation construction. Utility construction below the water table will likely require dewatering and may require subgrade stabiii7.ation material in areas of soft soils or where water was allowed to pond and soften the underlying subgrade. Soils encountered at the site are moisture -sensitive and are easily disturbed by construction activities and traffic. Heavy construction traffic should not travel directly over fine-grained subgrade soils in areas where the soil is near or wet of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698. In areas where heavy construction traffic is anticipated, haul roads with a minimum gravel thickness of 2 feet should be constructed over the planned subgrade. The gravel should consist of a well -graded pit run gravel with a maximum size of 3 inches with no more than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Geotextile fabric placed between the fine-grained soils and gravel for the haul road will reduce the risk of continued maintenance of the haul road during construction. Provided Page 4 Glacier Vallcy Village CMG Engineering, Inc. that the haul road is constructed over firm subg rade stripped of organics, it can be used as a portion of the subbase course for roadway areas. In addition, moisture contents of the near surface soils, in most areas, at the time of our investigation were below the optimum moisture content for the silt with sand soils, indicating the risk of disturbing the soils with construction traffic is low, assuming; adequate drainage is provided. However, due to the love moisture contents and lack of cohesive soils near the ground surface, it will be necessary to scarify the upper 8 inches of subgrade soils, moisture condition the soils to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content., and compact the soils to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 prior to construction of fills, roadways, buildings, and other settlement sensitive developments. Foundation Design The site is relatively flat with groundwater within 4.5 to 9 ft of the ground surface across much of the site. Due to the risk of water infiltration into basements and the lack of areas to gravity drain water collected below grade, we recomrtiend basements not be constructed within the flat areas of this development. Construction of basements and below grade structures is reasonable in the higher areas of the site along the slopes. Footings should be established in the undisturbed stiff silt, sand, silly clay or silt with gravel soils. Precautions to minimize disturbance of the bearing surface and reduce associated differential settlements will be provided in the final geotechnical investigation .report. The foregoing recommendations present our preliminary geotechnical input to assist in the design and feasibility studies for this project. In order for these recommendations to be properly incorporated in the subsequent design and construction stages we recommend that a final geotechnical investigation be completed for this project. This will likely consist of more subsurface explorations and possibly settlement analysis in large fill areas. We recommend our geotechnical engineering staff remain involved with the proj ect to ascertain that our recommendations have been properly interpreted both during design and construction. These services will reduce the potential for misinterpretation of subsurface conditions and g3eote6nical design recommendations that are important in the preparation of project plans, specifications and bid documents. Page 5 Glacier Valley Village CNIG Engineering, Inc. LIMITATIONS CMG Engineering, Inc. has strived to prepare this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area solely for use by the client for preliminary design and project feasibility purposes and is not intended as a construction or bid document representing subsurface conditions in their entirety. The conclusions and recommendations presented are based upon the data obtained during the investi gation as applied to the proposed design and construction details discussed in this report. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the l geotechnical investigation is completed or during construction. If variations are then exposed, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. if changes in the concept or design data are planned, the recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by our geotechnical engineer, and a written response is provided. Sincerely, John W. Ayers, P.E. Senior Materials Engineer Joshua C. Smith, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Page 6 Project: Glacier Valley Village Kalispell. Montana 0L _ J 2[JGPri .fort Number: 00-227 Date: September 28, 2006 41. Site Plan " C NIC. Engineering. Inc. Kali.�lteli. !IT APPENDIX A Field Erplorations and Laboratory} Testing GIa6er Vallc;y Village CMG Engineering, Inc. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS General The subsurface materials and conditions at the site were investigated by CMG on July 24 and 25, 2006, with ten borings designated 13-1 through 13-10. The locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. All field explorations were observed by an experienced engineer or geologist provided by our firm, who maintained a detailed log of the materials disclosed during the course of the work. The following subsections contain a detailed description of the field investigation completed for this project. Borings Borings B-1 through B-10 were completed to depths ranging from 15.7 to 20.8 ft. The borings were drilled with hollow -stem auger techniques using a truck -mounted Mobile BGl drill rig provided and operated by O'Keefe Environmental Drilling of Butte, Montana. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings at 2.5- to 5-ft intervals of depth. Disturbed samples were obtained using a standard split -spoon sampler. At the time of sampling, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was conducted. This test consists of driving a standard split -spoon sampler into the soil a distance of 1S in. using a 140-lb hammer dropped 30 in. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or N- value. The N-values provide a measure of the relative density of granular soils, such as sand, and the relative consistency or stiffness of cohesive sails, such as silt and clay. The soil samples obtained in the split -spoon swnpler were carefully examined in the field, and representative portions were saved in airtight plastic bags for further examination and physical testing in our laboratory. Undisturbed soil samples were collected using a thin walled shelby tube pushed into the soil with the drill rig's hydraulics. Lags of the borings are provided on Figures 1 A through 1 OA. Each log presents a descriptive summary of the various types of materials encountered and notes the depth where the materials andfor characteristics of the materials change. To the left of the descriptive summary, the numbers and types of samples taken during drilling operations are indicated, To the right, N-values are shown graphically, along with the natural moisture contents, Atterberg Limits, and Torvane shear strength values. LABORATORY TESTING General All samples obtained from the borings were returned to our laboratory where the physical characteristics of the samples were noted, and field classifications were modified where necessary. The laboratory testing program for this project consisted of natural moisture contents. Natural moisture content determinations were made in conformance with ASTM D2216. The results are shown on the boring lags, Figures l A through 10A. Page A-1 BORING LOG • , , i TIN w a ■ • ' • • Plastic Limit --I Liquid Water Content r (Blows per foot) 1 err �11�ti�l 1 r� SILT; �tiff, ist, abundant organics, dark brown Sifty CLAY, stiff, moist, thinly bedded to laminated., gray 1 brown 1 N Mill �� M ..��-----.� .. Will :�- 10 -15 20 -35 � 4 4 subround gravel, gi-avish brown �_�_�_� mm MM�� mmmm� EWE mm N mmm mm�� mmm M�M�� Mom ==M�m mmm Figure 1A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING L PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village CLIENT: Gateway Properties, Inc. LOCATION: N. 40 Acres, NE Corner PROJECT NO.: 06-227 DATE: July Z4, 2006 ELEVATION: DRILLER: O Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt B'2 METHOD: Hollow -stern Alper GW: g 4.5' 7-24-06 GW(2)- -ele.-,]7 f 4'illir I).ii. Nr.r.}{ II�Ifi�ikY• - TEST RESULTS LU m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Plastic Limit i I Liquid Limit water Content (percent) N-values A (Blows per foot) 13 20 30 40 60_ 7 80 90 0.17 aa1�� SILT; medium stilt, moist, abundant organics, dark brown { .1 (TOPSOIL) - - S-1 2.0 ' Poorly Graded SAND with Silt: 10 se, moist, fine grained sand, brown 5-2 4.2 Silty CLAY; medium stiff to stiff, moist, thinly bedded to 5 laminated, gray, pinkish brown and brown Interbedded with silt and sand layers - { 3' of heave in augers at 14.2 ft due to sand layer S-3 tpt 00 00 scattered gravels below 15 ft 4 - I S-4 00 - s I— E a i £ S-5 0 0 0 0 20 i 20'7 Bottom of BON B-2 fL. 20.7 R. _ o i 1 t1 3 2n FI Pr C O _ .1 J } 4 r Ki rl o " Fiaiire 2A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING LOG PROJECT., Glacier Valley Village _ PROJECT NO.: 06-227 CLIENT: 6ateway Properties, Inc. --- DATE: July 24, 2006 LOCATION: N_ 40 Acres, SW _Comer ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling --Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt - METHOD: Hollow -stern Auger GW: GW(2): - Bra Pik iA'.."7 (ilar.e, Pall- 1JIa ' i 1M ,.=%_^Ilnu �_ m r W °z ~ b o CL y� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST RESULTS it Plastic Lim1 s Liquid Limit Water (percent) N-values A (Blows per foot) so a - 5 -1 S-2 0.0 1.0 , SILT, medium stiff, moist, abundant organics, dark brown (T0P13011) fr — - - — - SILT with Sand to Sandy SILT, medium stiff, moist, fine grained sand, brown, soil tends to coarsen with depth _ -- 10 15 2D - 25 30 J S-4 7.t7 15.8 Gravelly SILT with Sand, stiff to very stiff. s0angular to subround gravel, grayish brown -- - Bottom of Boring 13-3 t0, I5.8 ft. Grorenthivier Not encotintered Figure 3A PAGE 1 of 1 -- . PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT1 -227 CLIENT: Gatew2y Prop�rtie% Inc. i , DATE: LOCATION: iAcres,Comer Hill ELEVATION. r rLOGGED METHOD: .. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ., ■ ■ 10 1 i 40 501 70 80 90 MM SILT; medium stiff, damp, abundant organics, dark brown r"T��M�MM r�■■6Mra■rr M SILT with Sand to Sandy SILTniedium stiff,damp, �■� �r�__r�r�r� grained sand, 1 1 �� rrarari�rr■ _4.2 Silty SAND. loose, damp, fine grained MIMI M rr,rr M ��r��r' �r�■rs�rr, -- ;---- - �..r,�....� ----ARMSilty IjO��l CLAY, medium stiff to stiff, moist, thinly 1 edded PCs laminated. gray, 1 r,r,r, Interb dded with silt and sand layers .. , , MMM .■ r,r,■.r,r,r,� MIMI �..r,■.r,r,�.■ ..■.�..r,MM ..��r,r,.■r, r, MM M=�MM 0 M MM �r,�." MM r� E ��■�rM M�MM MMMM r■■�� r,�r,r: ■r'�r■��■� ��r, rs��■■■�ii - rs MUM- �_ :i' I Z le 1 i PROJECT:NO.: 06-227 1- CLIENT: Gateway Properties, Inc. D.2006 LOCATION:ELEVATION: D" • DrillinSLOGGED i , METHOD: -Hollow-stern min *.MATERIAL DESCRIPT�01\1 TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit i Liquid Limit (Blom'Water Content J) (percent) N-Values A .. r r r r � ,r � :r •r I r SILT; stiff, r r. organics,r wauw�wawaum ��C�� ■r �E1�� bedded d with silt and silty sand layer� below 10 ft saturated below 9 11 wai�wiw�u■w ■w mow, m'C mmWerbedded mmm uuwa�waws �=mmm1m� mmImm =11mmmmm ■��■■w��wawawa ' 25 30 -35 ' 1 J4 Pii. +� '; �0; , , gravel, grayish brown _ - __ r�� wr■�■�w�uw u■r■r��iiwawaw�■r� uwsuu �■Cwa M� mmw■emm III _ Bottom Boringi __m -_ �wswa� �mmmI El uw�u�wiuwa uw�waw�w,�■�uu �■■w�ewi�wiwawraw■w■ w��w,u�uwawaw� �w�wiw,��■wa �■■wawawauwa■w w�■wwa�u�w��i wawtwrr�■��u wi�uwiwiw��■■�w,wi i■■�wwawauwaw�uwsu uuwawawa�■waw�� waw�u�w�uw�wa �w�wawaw�wawi■w ■�■wuwawauw� r..r w�wawawa�wa�■i ws wawa■w�wrwa wiuw� ■� �wauwa wrCwaws waw�■■■�■w�u�■■rwa Figure 5A PAGE 1 of 1 PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 BORING LOG CLIENT: Gateway Properties, Inc. DATE: July 24, 2006 LOCATION: ELEVATION: D-ILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt •METHOD: I 7-24-06 RESULTS M MATERIAL LiquidTEST ContentWater I� 0.0 abandant organics,dark brownSILT; 1.51 stiff, moist, - 1nterbedded with 2 to 6" Sandy Silt layers MEE ..� lo �w� ■mow ' �1'PA oolty moist,bedded . if.Y.l 19 iamin ed, gray, pinkish brown and brown at 4 f 1 _ 4SILTwithmoist� -• _______�_� ME 20.7 i , I� IIIII■I� - IIIIIIIII IIIIIII, SEE � I� I� 11111111/ I�IIIIIII� 25 r ��w�lllrwl■��■I� � 30 -35 ��s.■Mr��ri•r�■rw� OEM ..�mwONEM..� - _ MINE LOG PROJECT: Glacier Valley Villagg.. PROJECT NO.: 06-227 LOCATION:BORING ELEVATION: i •Schmidt METHOD: Hollow -stem ! e R f. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST -IESULTS Water Content c-., �Blowsper ■ tool) SILT; mediurn stiff,damp, abundantorganics,dark brown i ! damp , i sand,grained Sandy brown,.■ __� ___ _ .m_ _ Will NM— WIN__�____�■■ Im ME%:___ MOM ME ME __ _ MOM Imm ISO 11M a , gravel,cobbles sca _MIN ___ ME MIN MINIM ==_ ___ immm __ r■ MEW : mmm __ C�.r.__ _.■_ MOM r___ ___ ME mmm Will___ ___ __ __ mm ___ _ ____ _ _____ _� ___� ___ __ __ ___ _ MINIM rrr MIN _: �.=Im Figure 7A PAGE 1 of 1 PROJECT: Glacier Valley Village PROJECT NO.: 06-227 BORING L CLIENT: Gateway Properties, Inc. DATE:_ _ Rdy 24, 2006 LOCATION: S. 40 Acres, Center ELEVATION: DRILLER: O'Keefe Drilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Jeff Schmidt B'8 METHOD: Hollow -stern Auger GW: - GW(2�: � Fi4c crt�""-7 c93LLrr 1', ll� ` •c I1P7=Piuur :'A_'x,^mx, - ..�' TEST RESULTS _-'�'�.. M i Y ,, w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Piestic Limit 1 Watercoatent ' (percent) Liquid Limit u, N-values • (131uWS per font) 10 20 30 4060 70 80 90 #] S-1 T 0.0 1 � SILT; stiff, damp, abrintlail# organics, dark brown 1.4 (TOPSOIL) SILT with Sand; stiff, moist, fine grained sand, brown S-2 4.2 0 0 0 Silty CLAY; mcdiurn stiff to stiff, moist, thinly bedded to -5 01 laminated, gray, pinkish brown and brown Interbcdded with sill and sand layers E S-3 very moist to saturated below 14 ft 10 00 a a - a 0 i 0 5-4 =. 1 7 Bottom of Baring B-8 C4) 15.7 ft. _ c -20 u 0 O — - ' J 4 N 'r+ 0 25 H v R r 0 30 0 la 5 Gi-o nd ivater rail encowitered Fiaure 8A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING -, -. NO.: CLIENT: Gateway YY 11! ComerLOCATION: S. 40 Acres, SW D- •rilling - Steve LOGGED BY: Joshua Smith METHOD:Y MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST RESULTS Water Content 4!L (percent) :;gr foo II 0.010 (TOPSOIL) iiiiii 1� iiii ii�� i,:aiiiiii _ U II _ tl Y .. sand, brown FAU i�i j IIrl�l I�II�i I III I I� rbedded 1I �Ii ! I !�I'I . laminated, gray, ! brown ! Interbeddedwith sill and sand layers Y soft to medium stiff below IS ift i�JL! iii_i_i_ iiii i.� �, ■iiiiii) i i�i�iiiii iiiiii Boltoin • 1 MEi i iiii i i i iii iii E� iiii iii iiiii ii i iiiii ii i i MENi iiii i iiE Fiqure 9A PAGE 1 of 1 BORING ri r 3 EST RESULTS Plastic Urnit i. --A Liquid Limit Water Content (parcerit) 10 i 30 40 50 «0 70 80 •0 -15 ' Ficiure • �� 0• r darnp abtindantorganics,dark brown liiIM ii �l �liiliii SILT wA Sand to Sandy SILT; Stiff, MoiSt� fine grained sand,brown C ��■: iii i ■� i■ail iiiii i■ail rill fir" l�ll�l II II11 III j� Ij#Ijl�ii=C�■�i IIl I jl �F;'I��jl I'�11111�+1��`,II �� 11 Mr' I� I�� j � i��l I 1�1 Silty CLAY; , i laminated, gray, pinkish brown and browniil�i i r i r r if�i iiiii ■�iiliili i iimomM..Miiiii EMI �■�iiiiil■�r ■■� ililir�� ■.■ �lliii■irii■�■■ �� iiliwi■iii Ml i■i�� ■w■iili i■iiiiliiii i■ilii iii F11i!lii� i i�iJii i MM i■iiii■i�ilii Bottomof .. I PAGE 1 of 1 i i■iiiil i�iilill■�■ iiiii it ii iiiii i i li i i iiiii illiilii ii iiiili filar �ilil iii ill l ii i iiiii iiiii li liai ii iiiii iiiii l li 0■ili�li PTOE #4336 wGMGROUP Eagle Valley Ranch fic Impact Analysis Kalispell, Montana 17-06-24 Spartan Holdings 06.19.2018 1111 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802 1 OFFICE 406.728.4611 1 EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com REPORT DATE: 06.19.2018 AUTHOR: Mark Bancale, P.E., PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer WGM Group, Inc. Eagle Valley Ranch ANTraffic Impact Analysis I "'ONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................1 NO -BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................4 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC.....................................6 ASSIGNMENT OF SITE -GENERATED TRIPS ......... 7 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES.......................................11 CAPACITY ANALYSIS...............................................13 CRASH ANALYSIS......................................................18 NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION ...............19 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 20 APPENDICES A - CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS B - LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis I 0 INTRODUCTION Spartan Holdings proposes to develop a residential subdivision, Eagle Valley Ranch, east of US Highway 93 and north of Rose Crossing, in Kalispell, Montana (see Figure 1). This development will be constructed in phases and will feature a variety of residential development types, on a total of approximately 99.7 acres (see Figure 2). This traffic impact study was prepared using standard traffic engineering techniques to forecast traffic volumes and operations at the proposed site access points and nearby study intersections. Capacity analysis is presented both with and without the traffic generated by the proposed development to determine what impact the development will have on traffic operations. The subject property is currently undeveloped. Adjacent land uses include residential development, agricultural fields, and a developing mixed -use commercial area to the south. Vehicle access to Eagle Valley Ranch is proposed at three points. Flathead Boulevard and Eagle Valley Drive are each proposed as three-quarter movement accesses (right -in, right - out, and left -in) onto US Highway 93. Flathead Boulevard will also access Rose Crossing on the south with a stop -controlled access. Following consultation with MDT and the City of Kalispell, the following study intersections were identified for detailed analysis in this report: 1. US Highway 93 and Flathead Boulevard 2. US Highway 93 and Eagle Valley Drive 3. Rose Crossing and Flathead Boulevard 4. US Highway 93 and Rose Crossing In brief, the analysis conducted for this report leads to the findings that the subject development will not negatively impact traffic operations at the study intersections. This assumes that the traffic signal proposed by Kalispell North Town Center at the intersection of US Highway 93 and Rose Crossing is installed during the buildout of the development. No additional intersection improvements are required. Finally, sidewalks built on the site will connect to the sidewalks under construction on Rose Crossing, but no additional non - motorized transportation facilities exist in the project area. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I _ � �� - fir. _ • x SITE LOCATION a - - � � a ROSE CROSSING_ lY ,i W e3 - 1 � lL W - „ f ' .,.4..•_ 4V RESERVE UR _ ..� �,� L , tA Tr 1 i , - * y 4 it FIGURE 2: PROPOSED SITE PLAN U ��Nonn�wb9✓. saenvlaro' r�W - kn r ,�. '��i,i 'y. i.�.,3a>ji+els,sjn; I;.Sr't2s ''',y '•�' PUD Summary Open Share and Highway Landscape Buffer. 19 6 Acres Total Area One-Famlly Residential (112 Lots) Minimum 5,000 s° - 14.97 Acres Two -Family Residential (113 Lo%) Minimum 5,000 s` - 14.59 Acres Mult-Family Residential Lot Maximum 276 Units - 13.84 Acres Future Mixed -Use Densi6aa not Determined -18.18 Acres Right -of -Way and Roadway 17.2 Acres ROW 11.21 Acres Paved Roadway (ind.) 1,39 Aems in Paved Alley s '/' Vicinity Map tea_ �,.., ,. ,�..:. ,: <- �, - s<,o,•.,�a��.�•I �.'LF 17 231 ^ 234 237 LOT 240 - II 13.8 Acre I r� k 232 235 238 • `' Apartment Site •- Y - - - -- - - 276 QU @ 20 Dt1IAC 3 Story Bukings - 40 Ft Hgt Max. 233 i 236. 239 552 Parking Spaces ' I — V 209 3 + .. n 12. SEL-19 Ts9H, R21W. FlAif lAUCWr,IY. AICILIR[vA •.. .. al i dlii'L►'1.P.L�. u I1n.t C7EYP.�0�1F77.P.f'Lt " I Dowtoper: 5partu % Hc>;d++aga KaUgxiis Movdxurwl Lad PMnnw aM Ls wsau aAFc iWcL WGM Group W ' Civil Sn& m. VYGM Gray Tm'%f nglne .WGM Grdp WGINGRLIIIP Surveyor S9m Goldi Su"ying Geu a iw CumvftarR: CMG 6ngt—ring Inc. Date: a6.04-201a 9FL MA Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 3 0 NO -BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES The standard approach to preparing a traffic impact study is to conduct counts of existing traffic at the study intersections, and to project these volumes to the study year using an annual traffic growth rate. This standard approach is complicated in the present case by the fact that Rose Crossing is being extended from its current terminus at Whitefish Stage Road to intersect with US Highwy 93 south of the Eagle Valley Ranch site. This extension will result in a significant diversion of existing peak hour traffic. Additionally, a large mixed - use development known as Kalispell North Town Center (KNTC) is well along in the approval process and will generate large volumes of traffic through the study intersections. Upon detailed review of the KNTC TIS prepared by CTA (December 2016) it was WGM Group's conclusion that the most reasonable approach to the Eagle Valley Ranch TIS is to use the KNTC Phase 1 + Phase 2 build traffic volumes as the "no -build" condition for Eagle Valley Ranch. The KNTC build volumes already have accounted for and incorporated estimates of the Rose Crossing diversions and KNTC site -generated traffic. Before starting on this TIS, WGM Group communicated with both MDT and the City of Kalispell and confirmed that this approach to the traffic analysis is acceptable to both agencies. The KNTC Phase 1 + Phase 2 build traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3. These are the no -build traffic volumes projected to exist if the proposed Eagle Valley Ranch Development is not constructed. (Note that the KNTC TIS treated the intersection of Rose Crossing and Flathead Boulevard as an internal intersection and, as such, did not include traffic volume estimates at this location. For the purposes of this TIS, WGM Group prepared an estimate of traffic volumes at this intersection based on continunity of traffic flow on Rose Crossing between Flathead Boulevard and US Highway 93, and a basic understanding of the proposed land uses north and south of the intersection.) Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 4 FIGURE 3: PROJECTED NO -BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1w+ ow Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 5 0 Sl TE- GENERA TED TPA FFl C At full buildout of the residential development proposed within Eagle Valley Ranch, the land use will consist of approximately 112 single family homes, 226 townhomes, and 276 apartment dwelling units. Data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (9th Edition) was used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. Table 1 shows the results of the trip - generation calculations. It is possible that additional portions of the property may develop in the future with land uses that can not be predicted at this time. Should this occur, additional traffic analysis will be prepared to address the additional development at that time. This analysis focus on only the residential development. TABLE 1: SITE -GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS Land Use Size ITE Land Use Code AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Single Family Residential 112 210 22 66 73 43 Residential Townhomes 226 230 17 82 78 39 Apartments 276 220 28 111 110 59 TOTAL 1 67 259 261 141 Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 6 0 A SSl GNMEN T O F Sl TE- GENERA TED TP/PS Peak -hour turning movement counts conducted on an approach to US Highway 93 from a nearby residential development show that 20% of peak hour drivers turned north toward Whitefish, while 80% turned south toward Kalsipell. The preparers of the KNTC TIS used separate methods to also arrive at the conclusion that 20% of traffic from that site would travel north. They further concluded that 50% would travel to/from the south on US Highway 93, with the remaining 30% using Rose Crossing to the east. WGM Group used this same trip distribution pattern for the analysis in this report after checking it for reasonableness against the land use density and roadway network in the greater Kalispell area. The estimated site traffic arrival and departure patterns for Eagle Valley Ranch are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. The AM and PM site -generated vehicle trips from Table 1 were distributed through the study intersections in accordance with the estimated arrival and departure patterns, resulting in the site -generated peak -hour trips shown in Figure 6. These are the vehicle trips that are new to the roadway network as a result of development of the proposed Eagle Valley Ranch residential development. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 7 FIGURE 4: SITE TRAFFIC ARRIVAL PATTERN Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I %6 qw J zj7l 4 FIGURE 5: 51TE TRAFFIC DEPARTURE PATTERN W Vr. 4r' LEGEND or -r.val Pattern mom� Departure Pattern SITE LOCATION OIL Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study FIGURE 6: SITE -GENERATED PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 10 0 BUILD TPAFFlC VOLUMEc Combining the site -generated trips from Figure 6 with the no -build traffic volumes from Figure 3 results in the projected Eagle Valley Ranch build traffic volumes shown in Figure 7. These are the traffic volumes projected to exist at the study intersections when the Eagle Valley Ranch residential development is fully built -out and occupied. MA Eagle Valley Ranch WTraffic Impact Study I 11 FIGURE 7: PROJECTED EAGLE VALLEY RANCH BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUME T. W-. w Ri"rr 781i,,r 1 a Elf Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 12 0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Intersection capacity analysis was conducted for each of the study intersections in accordance with the procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. The analysis results are discussed below and the analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix A. The analysis procedures result in traffic level of service (LOS) rankings from A to F, with A representing essentially free -flow conditions and F representing congested conditions. See Appendix B for a description of the various LOS categories for unsignalized intersections. Elf Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 13 1. INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 93 AND FLATHEAD BOULEVARD EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection does not currently exist. US Highway 93 is a north/south arterial roadway with two travel lanes in each direction plus a center two -way -left -turn -lane (TWLTL) and nine -foot paved shoulders. Flathead Boulevard will be constructed as a site access on the east side of US Highway 93, with one entering lane, one existing lane, and a raised median to limit the intersection to three-quarter access movements. Flathead Boulevard will be stop -sign controlled. The posted speed limit on US Highway 93 is 65 mph. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2: US HIGHWAY 93 AND FLATHEAD BOULEVARD LOS SUMMARY Build Traffic Volume Peak AM Hour Peak PM Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Southbound Left 10.3 B 15.0 B Westbound Right 12.2 B 17.0 C *Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 2 shows that the proposed Flathead Boulevard access to US Highway 93 will operate at an acceptable level of serivice with full bulidout of the proposed residential subdivision. No intersection improvements are necessary at this location with the exception of the construction of the proposed approach street. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 14 2. INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 93 AND EAGLE VALLEY DRIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection does not currently exist. US Highway 93 is a north/south arterial roadway with two travel lanes in each direction plus a center TWLTL and nine -foot paved shoulders. Eagle Valley Drive will be constructed as a site access on the east side of US Highway 93, with one entering lane, one existing lane, and a raised median to limit the intersection to three-quarter access movements. Eagle Valley Drive will be stop -sign controlled. The posted speed limit on US Highway 93 is 65 mph. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3: US HIGHW aLE VALLEY DRIVE LOS SUMMARY Build Traffic Volume Peak AM Hour Peak PM Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Southbound Left 10.2 B 16.0 C Westbound Right 12.3 B 17.9 C *Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 3 shows that the proposed Eagle Valley Drive access to US Highway 93 will operate at an acceptable level of serivice with full bulidout of the proposed residential subdivision. No intersection improvements are necessary at this location with the exception of the construction of the proposed approach street. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 15 3. INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 93 AND ROSE CROSSING EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection does not currently exist. US Highway 93 is a north/south arterial roadway with two travel lanes in each direction plus a center TWLTL. Rose Crossing is currently being constructed by the developers of GNTC with a three -lane section from its current terminus at Whitefish Stage Road to intersect with US Highway 93 and form this intersection. At its intersection with US Highway 93, Rose Crossing will provide one left -turn lane and one right -turn lane, with stop -sign control. The ultimate configuration of this intersection will include a second eastbount left -turn lane and traffic signal control. The KNTC development has proposed this intersection buildout, and is monitoring the intersection to determine when the traffic signal is warranted. KNTC will construct the traffic signal when warranted. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the no -build and build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4 assuming stop -sign control. TABLE 4: US HIGHWAY 93 AND ROSE CROSSING LOS SUMMARY Peak AM Hour Peak PM Hour No -Build Build No -Build Build Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Westbound Left 254.8 F 1262.1 F 3863.7 F 8420.8 F Westbound Right 13.6 B 14.1 B 17.4 C 19.4 C Southbound Left 11.2 B 11.5 B 17.5 C 20.8 C *Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 4 shows that the intersection of US Highway 93 and Rose Crossing will operate at a very poor LOS F in the no -build condition. This includes traffic from the Rose Crossing extension, as well as development of 14 commercial lots and an elementary school in KNTC, estimated to generate approximately 1,900 AM peak hour trips and 3,400 PM peak hour trips. Having forseen these traffic operations, the preparers of the KNTC TIS recommended signalization of this interesction. This signalization will occur once enough development comes online to warrant the signal. With signalization, this intersection will operate an an overall LOS A or B under both the no -build and build conditions. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 16 4. INTERSECTION OF ROSE CROSSING AND FLATHEAD BOULEVARD EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection does not currently exist. Rose Crossing is currently being constructed as an east/west three -lane roadway between US Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. At this intersection, Rose Crossing will consist of one left -turn lane and one through/right-turn lane in each direction. The north and south legs of Flathead Boulevard are also being constructed by the developer of KNTC with a single left/through/right lane southbound, and one left -turn land and one through/right-turn lane northbound. Both the northbound and southbound approaches will be stop -sign controlled. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the no -build and build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5. TABLE 5: ROSE CROSSING AND FLATHEAD BOULEVARD LOS SUMMARY Peak AM Hour Peak PM Hour No -Build Build No -Build Build Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound Left 7.5 A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.9 A Westbound Left 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.7 A 7.7 A Northbound Left 14.0 B 18.5 C 15.6 C 21.1 C Northbound Th/Rt 10.6 B 10.7 B 10.9 B 11.7 B Southbound Lt/Th/Rt 12.1 B 16.3 C 12.4 B 16.2 C al *Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 5 shows that the intersection of Rose Crossing and Flathead Boulevard will operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in both the no - build and condition. No intersection improvements are required. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 17 0 CPA SH A NA L YSI S Crash analysis was not conducted because none of the study intersections currently exist. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 18 0 NON -MOTORIZED TPANSPOPA TION There are no no -motorized facilities (sidewalks, bike lanes, trails) on US Highway 93, nor within the surrounding roadway system, in the vicinity of the site. Boulevard sidewalks will be constructed along all public streets within the Eagle Valley Ranch subdivision, providing connectivity for pedestrians within the subdivision, and connecting to the sidewalk being constructed along Rose Crossing. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 19 0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The discussion and analyses contained in this report can be summarized as follows: • Spartan Holdings proposes to develop a residential subdivision, Eagle Valley Ranch, east of US Highway 93 and north of Rose Crossing, in Kalispell, Montana. This development will include single family homes, residential townhomes, and apartments. • Vehicle access to the development is proposed via two, three-quarter movement access points onto US Highway 93, and one full -movement approach onto Rose Crossing. An adjacent commercial mixed -use development, Kalispell North Town Center (KNTC) is currently being developed south of the subject site. KNTC will construct Rose Crossing between US Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. The traffic associated with construction of this connection and the buildout of Phases 1 and 2 of KNTC was used as the "no -build" condition for this analysis of Eagle Valley Ranch. • The KNTC development will install a traffic signal at the intersection of US Highway 93 and Rose Crossing when traffic volumes warrant. This signal is necessary for the successful operation of this intersection, whether with or without the Eagle Valley Ranch traffic. Without this signal, the westbound left -turn movement will function at a very poor LOS F in the no -build traffic condition. • The Eagle Valley Ranch development will not negatively affect traffic operations at any of the four study intersections, assuming the signal is constructed at US Highway 93 and Rose Crossing. • Boulevard sidewalks will be constructed along all roadways withing the proposed subdivision, connecting to the sidewalks currently being constructed on Rose Crossing. No other non -motorized facilities exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Study I 20 0 A PPEND lX A CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS MA Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis I HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Flathead Boulevard Analysis Year North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes � J 4 1 1. 4- Lt r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T I R U L I T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 16 916 11 4 1054 Percent Heavy Vehicles Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.92 4.12 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.31 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 17 4 Capacity, c (veh/h) 516 689 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.2 10.3 Level of Service, LOS B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.2 0.0 Approach LOS B :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7W TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 1:24:24 PM AAMB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Flathead Boulevard Analysis Year North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes � J4 1 J.4- U r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 8 1515 42 16 1350 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.92 4.12 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.31 2,21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 17 Capacity, c (veh/h) 308 377 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.0 15.0 Level of Service, LOS C B Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.0 0.2 Approach LOS C :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7M TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 1:25:41 PM APMB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Eagle Valley Drive Analysis Year North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes 4 J •1 1 J. -?- !- �, U I*YT ?IP Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 28 898 17 7 1047 Percent Heavy Vehicles Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.92 4.12 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.31 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 30 8 Capacity, c (veh/h) 521 698 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 12.3 10.2 Level of Service, LOS B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.3 0.1 Approach LOS B :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7M TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 1:46:06 PM baMB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Eagle Valley Drive Analysis Year North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes � r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 16 1541 68 29 1321 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.92 4.12 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 33 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.31 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 17 32 Capacity, c (veh/h) 295 359 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.09 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.2 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.9 16.0 Level of Service, LOS:d C C Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.9 0.3 Approach LOS C :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7M TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 1:47:22 PM BPMB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak AM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes s J.1 1J.4-J6 iU � Ir Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 68 129 751 78 156 889 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.84 6.94 4.14 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.52 3.32 2.22 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 74 140 170 Capacity, c (veh/h) 66 557 750 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.25 0.23 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 5.8 1.0 0.9 Control Delay (s/veh) 254.8 13.6 11.2 Level of Service, LOS F B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 97.0 1.7 Approach LOS F :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS71H TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 2:04:59 PM CAM N B.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes fl'iITtYr 10r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 198 137 779 83 158 889 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.84 6.94 4.14 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.52 3.32 2.22 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 215 149 172 Capacity, c (veh/h) 62 542 727 v/c Ratio 3.49 0.28 0.24 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 22.7 1.1 0.9 Control Delay (s/veh) 1262.1 14.1 11.5 Level of Service, LOS F B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 751.2 1.7 Approach LOS F .opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7TN TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 2:06:44 PM CAMB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes �. -• JL + I It Y t r r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 138 53 1357 46 135 1178 Percent Heavy Vehicles (% 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.84 6.94 4.14 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.52 3.32 2.22 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 150 58 147 Capacity, c (veh/h) 17 348 433 v/c Ratio 8.63 0.17 0.34 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 19.5 0.6 1.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 3863.7 1 17.4 17.5 Level of Service, LOS F I C C Approach Delay (s/veh) 2791.2 1.8 Approach LOS F .opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7TK TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 2:22:45 PM CPMNB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/18/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street US Highway 93 Time Analyzed Peak PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes y .�d 4.,.4-&LU k- 4L �+ ti '1 I+ Y f r r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T TR L T Volume, V (veh/h) 209 57 1467 67 143 1178 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.84 6.94 4.14 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.52 3.32 2.22 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 227 62 155 Capacity, c (veh/h) 12 311 381 v/c Ratio 18.39 0.20 0.41 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 29.7 0.7 1.9 Control Delay (s/veh) 8420.8 20.8 Level of Service, LOS F E19.4 C Approach Delay (s/veh) 6618.4 2.2 Approach LOS F :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7M TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/18/2018 2:23:43 PM CPMB.xtw Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 � k t to I%. l Lane Group ,V3L 1,13Y NBT NER SBL S6T Lane Configurations I) 11 r, tt Volume (vph) 198 137 779 83 158 889 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Storage Length (ft) 290 290 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 160 120 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.986 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3162 1458 3214 0 1630 3260 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.227 Satd. Flow (perm) 3162 1458 3214 0 389 3260 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 149 16 Link Speed (mph) 25 65 65 Link Distance (ft) 558 508 480 Travel Time (s) 15.2 5.3 5.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 215 149 847 90 172 966 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 215 149 937 0 172 966 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 22.0 22.0 47.0 21.0 68.0 Total Split (%) 24.4% 24.4% 52.2% 23.3% 75.6% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 40.0 15.0 61.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 11.0 46.7 62.1 61.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.55 0.73 0.72 Eagle Valley Ranch AM Build 7:00 am 6/19/2018 Baseline Synchro 8 Report SM Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 Lane Groff Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio #,- k r WBL WByR� NST i I� t k, 68 129 751 1750 1750 1750 290 290 1 1 160 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.850 0.986 0.950 3162 1458 3214 0.950 3162 1458 3214 Yes 140 25 558 15.2 0.92 0.92 74 140 74 140 No No Left Right 24 0 16 1.11 1.11 15 9 Perm Perm NA 2 8 8 8 8 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 49.0 24.4% 24.4% 54.4% 16.0 16.0 42.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Lag 3.0 3.0 3.0 Min Min Max 7.7 7.7 47.2 0.09 0.09 0.58 NGR SBL SBT A 78 156 889 1750 1750 1750 0 100 0 1 120 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.950 0 1630 3260 0.248 0 425 3260 Yes 16 65 508 5.3 0.92 0.92 816 85 901 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 Yes 1.11 1.11 65 480 5.0 0.92 0.92 170 966 170 966 No No Left Left 12 0 16 Yes 9 15 pm+pt NA 1 6 6 1 6 4.0 4.0 10.0 20.0 19.0 68.0 21.1 % 75.6% 13.0 61.0 3.5 6.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 Lead 3.0 3.0 None Max 62.1 61.1 0.76 0.75 Eagle Valley Ranch AM No -Build 7:00 am 6/19/2018 Baseline Synchro 8 Report SM Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 Lane Group 'ABR t 1* NET rdGFR '-* S5L 1 aE T v/c Ratio 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.42 0.41 Control Delay 39.3 11.2 14.0 7.1 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.3 11.2 14.0 7.1 5.7 LOS D B B A A Approach Delay 27.8 14.0 5.9 Approach LOS C B A 90th %ile Green (s) 14.5 14.5 44.1 10.9 61.0 90th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 70th %ile Green (s) 12.4 12.4 45.8 9.2 61.0 70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 50th %ile Green (s) 11.0 11.0 46.8 8.2 61.0 50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 30th %ile Green (s) 9.7 9.7 47.7 7.3 61.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 10th %ile Green (s) 7.8 7.8 48.7 6.3 61.0 10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 0 152 23 90 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 51 241 48 142 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 428 400 Turn Bay Length (ft) 290 290 100 Base Capacity (vph) 595 395 1771 502 2339 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.38 0.53 0.34 0.41 Intersection Sunitrtary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 85.1 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 88.5 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 86.4 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 85 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 83.7 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 81.8 Splits and Phases: 3: Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service B 'v01 t02 08 21s 47s • 06 .685 1 7- Eagle Valley Ranch AM Build 7:00 am 6/1912018 Baseline Synchro 8 Report SM Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 Lane Grow 4" 'j1.'6L 4.- V`26r% I NBT la. 1 NBR SBL i SST v/c Ratio 0.25 0.53 0.48 0.39 0.40 Control Delay 36.1 14.3 11.6 5.6 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.1 14.3 11.6 5.6 4.5 LOS D B B A A Approach Delay 21.9 11.6 4.7 Approach LOS C B A 90th %ile Green (s) 11.5 11.5 44.8 10.2 61.0 90th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 70th %ile Green (s) 8.0 8.0 46.5 8.5 61.0 70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 50th %ile Green (s) 7.3 7.3 47.3 7.7 61.0 50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 30th %ile Green (s) 6.6 6.6 48.0 7.0 61.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 10th %ile Green (s) 5.5 5.5 48.8 6.2 61.0 10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 0 125 18 72 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 50 208 41 123 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 428 400 Turn Bay Length (ft) 290 290 100 Base Capacity (vph) 618 398 1859 514 2433 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.35 0.48 0.33 0.40 ItrilbieqD11to�r summa-v Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 81.8 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53 Intersection Signal Delay: 9.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8% Analysis Period (min)15 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 85.5 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 82 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 81.3 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 80.6 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 79.5 Solits and Phases: 3: Intersection LOS: A ICU Level of Service A 1*01 t02 08 24 s �9 s 06 68 s Eagle Valley Ranch AM No -Build 7:00 am 6/19/2018 Baseline Synchro 8 Report SM Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 Lane Group Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio k I V)BL `vVSR rdaT 138 53 1357 1750 1750 1750 290 290 1 160 1 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.850 0.995 0.950 3162 1458 3244 0.950 3162 1458 3244 Yes 58 6 25 65 558 508 15.2 5.3 0.92 0.92 0.92 150 58 1475 150 58 No No Left Right 24 0 16 1.11 1.11 15 9 Perm Perm 8 8 8 8 2 � � 1 NBR SBL ZET tt 46 135 1178 1750 1750 1750 0 100 0 1 120 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.950 0 1630 3260 0.084 0 144 3260 Yes 0.92 50 1525 0 No No Left Right 12 0 16 Yes 1.11 1.11 9 NA 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 56.0 22.2% 22.2% 62.2% 14.0 14.0 49.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Lag 3.0 3.0 3.0 Min Min Max 9.4 9.4 49.5 0.11 0.11 0.58 65 480 5.0 0.92 0.92 147 1280 147 1280 No No Left Left 12 0 16 Yes 1.11 1.11 15 pm+pt NA 1 6 6 1 6 4.0 4.0 10.0 20.0 14.0 70.0 15.6% 77.8% 8.0 63.0 3.5 6.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 7.0 Lead 3.0 3.0 None Max 64.0 63.0 0.75 0.74 Eagle Valley Ranch PM No -Build 4:00 pm 6/19/2018 Baseline Synchro 8 Report SM Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 t �► 1 Lane Group `,NBA G15R NET NFER SBL _SET v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.81 0.62 0.53 Control Delay 39.4 13.4 19.1 22.3 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.4 13.4 19.1 22.3 6.0 LOS D B B C A Approach Delay 32.1 19.1 7.7 Approach LOS C B A 90th %ile Green (s) 12.2 12.2 49.0 8.0 63.0 90th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR 70th %ile Green (s) 10.5 10.5 49.0 8.0 63.0 70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR 50th %ile Green (s) 9.4 9.4 49.0 8.0 63.0 50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR 30th %ile Green (s) 8.3 8.3 49.8 7.2 63.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR 10th %ile Green (s) 6.7 6.7 50.6 6.4 63.0 10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Hold Gap MaxR Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 0 318 19 126 Queue Length 95th (ft) 68 34 455 #93 193 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 428 400 Turn Bay Length (ft) 290 290 100 Base Capacity (vph) 518 287 1882 247 2405 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.20 081 0.60 0.53 I n terse :�ti c:T '0 Li MT n a Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 85.4 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 14.8 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 88.2 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 86.5 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 85.4 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 84.3 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 82.7 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solis and Phases: 3: 1*01 1 tat 14s S6s 1 06 20 5 SM Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 � 4Q I Lane Group �SL ':':'ER NET N.5R S9.L SET Lane Configurations r +T ++ Volume (vph) 209 57 1467 67 143 1178 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Storage Length (ft) 290 290 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 160 120 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.993 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3162 1458 3237 0 1630 3260 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.071 Satd. Flow (perm) 3162 1458 3237 0 122 3260 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 62 8 Link Speed (mph) 25 65 25 Link Distance (ft) 558 508 480 Travel Time (s) 15.2 5.3 13.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 227 62 1595 73 155 1280 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 227 62 1668 0 155 1280 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Detector Phase 8 8 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 11.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 57.0 13.0 70.0 Total Split (%) 22.2% 22.2% 63.3% 14.4% 77.8% Maximum Green (s) 14.0 14.0 50.0 7.0 63.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) 11.3 11.3 50.0 64.0 63.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.57 0.73 0.72 Eagle Valley Ranch PM Build 4:00 pm 6/19/2018 Baseline Synchro 8 Report SM Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: 6/19/2018 Lane Group 'e, V.I5L k WER f GT f* 1* NFjR :8L SST v/c Ratio 0.56 0.26 0.90 0.74 0.54 Control Delay 41.1 12.2 25.0 37.3 6.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.1 12.2 25.0 37.3 6.9 LOS D B C D A Approach Delay 34.9 25.0 10.1 Approach LOS C C B 90th %ile Green (s) 14.0 14.0 50.0 7.0 63.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max MaxR Max MaxR 70th %ile Green (s) 13.0 13.0 50.0 7.0 63.0 70th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR 50th %ile Green (s) 11.5 11.5 50.0 7.0 63.0 50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR 30th %ile Green (s) 10.1 10.1 50.0 7.0 63.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR 10th %ile Green (s) 8.1 8.1 50.0 7.0 63.0 10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap MaxR Max MaxR Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 0 394 35 142 Queue Length 95th (ft) 97 35 #618 #138 210 Internal Link Dist (ft) 478 428 400 Turn Bay Length (ft) 290 290 100 Base Capacity (vph) 507 285 1857 210 2353 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.22 0.90 0.74 0.54 lnterseotan 5ismman° Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 87.3 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 19.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 89 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 87.5 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 86.1 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 84.1 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: I o2 23s 157s 4 06 08 7AS SM Page 2 General Information Two -Way-•• Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/19/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year North/South Street Flathead Boulevard Time Analyzed Peak AM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes -4 � t- G Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 20 150 65 30 110 10 50 10 20 30 20 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.22 2.22 3.52 4.02 3.32 1 1 3.52 4.02 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 22 33 54 33 98 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1453 1332 452 680 606 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.05 0.16 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 Control Delay (s/veh) EA 7.8 14.0 10.6 12.1 Level of Service, LOS A B B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.6 1.6 12.7 12.1 Approach LOS B B :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 M TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/19/2018 8:48:22 AM DAMNB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection f Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/19/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year North/South Street Flathead Boulevard Time Analyzed Peak AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes 4 . �I+YI f r Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 27 150 65 30 110 30 50 10 20 108 20 177 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) E222 2.22 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 29 33 54 33 331 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1427 1332 319 664 646 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.05 0.51 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 2.9 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.8 18.5 10.7 16.3 Level of Service, LOS A A C B C Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.8 1.4 15.6 16.3 Approach LOS C C .opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7TH TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/19/2018 8:49:24 AM DAMB.xtw HCS7 General Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed 6/19/2018 Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Intersection Jurisdiction East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year North/South Street Flathead Boulevard Time Analyzed Peak PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes 4 � G 'SI+Yt Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 40 100 40 80 120 30 50 20 60 10 10 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.22 2.22 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 43 87 54 87 44 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1415 1428 394 693 529 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.06 0.14 0.13 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.7 15.6 10.9 12.4 Level of Service, LOS A A C B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 1.7 2.7 12.7 12.4 Approach LOS B B .opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7�li TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/19/2018 8:50:38 AM DPMNB.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/19/2018 East/West Street Rose Crossing Analysis Year North/South Street Flathead Boulevard Time Analyzed Peak PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Eagle Valley Ranch TIS Lanes 4 ?- 1r IIttYI pr Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR L TR LTR Volume, V (veh/h) 69 100 40 80 120 108 50 20 60 52 10 95 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.22 2.22 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 75 87 54 87 171 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1318 1428 277 625 490 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.14 0.35 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 7.7 21.1 11.7 16.2 Level of Service, LOS A A C B C Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.6 2.0 15.3 16.2 Approach LOS C C :opyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7M TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 6/19/2018 8:51:37 AM DPMB.xtw 0 APPENDIX B LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Eagle Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis I 0 UNSI GNA L IZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SER VICE DEFINED Level of Service (LOS) for unsignalized (two -way -stop -controlled) intersections is determined by the control delay experienced by drivers on each minor approach. Minor movements are those entering from or exiting onto the stop -controlled side street(s). LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole, but rather for each minor movement individually. The delay value used in determining LOS is known as "control delay." Control delay is defined as the total delay experienced by a driver and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The delay a vehicle experiences is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation on the uncontrolled (unstopped) roadway (i.e. the number of acceptable gaps in the passing traffic stream). LOS values range from A to F. The delay range for each LOS value is as shown in the following table. LOS Criteria for Two -Way Stop -Controller LOS AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE) A 0-10 B >10 - 15 C >15 - 25 D >25 - 35 E >35 - 50 F >50 *Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, HCM2010 I Intersections Eagle Valley Ranch I Traffic Impact Analysis I O Q lD 1p W 0 OTT _ 0 OTT LL LL oo 0 o'SOT O'SOT V li i ii � o - 6 M O \ M O I / / �\ . 01, IV \ / I I ✓0 E/ a S 1.45 Acm-s cri > > CD cn CD a CA CD iml 0 Lri .< N) > C") a) a- CC) ., 73 FI (o 3 > (n CD 0 (J) -+. (D C) ❑1z) C cn (D 0 to i 74. Kari Hernandez From: Richie Carter Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 9:47 PM To: Kari Hernandez Subject: Public Comment for Eagle Valley Ranch Dear Kalispell City Planning Board & Zoning Commission, My name is Richie Carter. I am currently living on Ponderosa Lane, just near the proposed housing and commercial development site of Eagle Valley Ranch. There are a number of concerns I would like to voice with the current proposal. Firstly, as most comments I am sure have expressed, I am concerned with the increase in traffic that will occur with a high density development such as Eagle Valley Ranch. From what I have read about the traffic studies, they seem to only include information based on the residents and fail to address the additional traffic due to the commercial lots that are a part of the development. How many more cars and turns will this add to those studies? I imagine there will be additional traffic created by both the employees and customers of these commercial sites. It is interesting that the analysis was done in compliance with a 2010 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Perhaps that is the most current manual and is sufficient. Do we need to sprawl the commercial sites even further north as there are still many vacant sites closer to the main bypass development areas around Home Depot? The bypass is at least designed to accommodate this type of commercial growth. And why create something outside of this already designated area? The bypass re-routes traffic so well, so why are we eager to extend past it's ability to do what it was designed to do? I am also curious as to the motives behind this commercial expansion with a community that says they want to invest in revitalizing a downtown and a more community based approach to growth. The sprawl near Hutton Ranch already seems to be out of any manageable scale, and very much counter to the efforts in revitalizing our local town. Are the developers really a part of our community or are they from out of state capitalizing on the incredible place we call home, that is subsequently in such a period of growth? Another point I would like to bring to light is the data for impacts on local schools and the number of new students. The information is based on a 2010 census. Given that this was directly after the 2008 economic recession, it seems it would not be completely accurate 8 years later. I know the census is done every 10 years, but perhaps there can be an additional consideration for these past 8 years of growth. Would it be more or less now? I don't know. Lastly, like many of the people that call this valley home, and because I am born and raised in the Flathead, I hold dear the beauty that surrounds us. I think we need to be more thoughtful in the way we are expanding and growing. Many people come here because of the natural beauty. We are well on our way to creating a suburban sprawl that is moving far away from the city of Kalispell's desire to encourage the revitalization of what we already have. The sprawl that we have sadly allowed, is becoming such an eyesore to the land we have all come here to experience. I imagine very few have come here to gaze upon endless traffic lights, acres of concrete parking lots, and giant box stores as a foreground to the Swan Range and Glacier National Park. It is clear that the current boom of Kalispell has nearly zero care in any aesthetic decisions made towards its expansion. Let us take pride in what we are constructing so that not only us locals, but the tourists who largely support us, will benefit from our decisions. We all know our economy is tourism based. And, it is so because of the rich natural surroundings that are becoming less and less. Growth is inevitable I know, so we must be more conscious of how we do it. It seems there is such a lack of care in what we have built. We need to think ahead more than a quick buck on someone's part, and ask ourselves, will this be an investment for generations to come? I thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Sincerely, Richie Carter Kari Hernandez From: Sent: To: Subject From: Kenneth Yarus 425 Ponderosa Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Project: Eagle Valley Ranch Dear Kalispell Planning Board, Ken Y Tuesday, January 1, 2019 2:32 PM Kari Hernandez Public Comment for Eagle Valley Ranch My name is Kenneth Yarus and I live on Ponderosa Lane, not far from the planned Eagle Valley Ranch. I am writing to voice my concerns about this plan. In the application they state the residential areas will be affordable housing similar to Ashley View development south of town. Those developments have not improved with age, and will become more of a burden on the community than an asset as time goes on. I want to second what Sharon DeMeester had suggested as far as building types. Allowing a more varied and creative layout other than the block by block layout will improve the quality of life for everyone. I also support more green space and tree lines intended to improve privacy and beauty of the area. I believe it will be important for us all to consider the beauty of our valley and what our developments mean to that. Urban sprawl is not what motivates more people to visit or live here. I support creating bike lanes or walkways that can help connect residents of the area to businesses not just within this development. I will say that apartment complexes are a great idea as they help relieve housing stresses on our young and old. The local service jobs do not pay enough for most property prices. Again with concern to the beauty of our community -please do not adopt the design of the "Treeline Apartments" off the bypass. Nothing about those buildings fits the beauty of Montana. The application also states it will have 14 more commercial lots. What is the intention with 14 more commercial lots? We have many vacant commercial properties throughout Kalispell. These vacant or abandoned lots are becoming an eye sore that damage the appeal of this town to tourists -a primary component to our economy. How can the planning board pretend to improve downtown while pushing all commerce out of town? Finally, I share the concern that many other public commenters have had regarding traffic. I cannot see how this plan will not create a more dangerous Highway 93. 1 am also very confused as to why development is being encouraged past the bypass. Adding more stop lights and even more development past the termination point of the bypass makes little sense. Trucking traffic and commuters of the valley need an open and fluid traffic system. Perhaps there is another plan to extend the bypass yet further that I don't know about. I also have concerns with Reserve and Whitefish Stage. Both roads are going to need to be wider at some point. I see traffic regularly backed up from the Whitefish Stage light all the way to the bridge over the Stillwater river. Reserve is a major artery for Kalispell to Evergreen and this development will only further tax these road ways. The anticipation of at least another 232 children commuting to school via these roads is scary. I sincerely hope the planning board is keeping the good of the community and long term plans in mind when considering this development. Bill and Diane Yarus 425 Ponderosa Lane Kalispell, MT RE: Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision Dear Kalispell City Planning Board, Thank you for considering our comments about the proposed development just south of our property in Ptarmigan Farms (adjacent to Ponderosa Estates), where we have lived for over 26 years. Why on earth do we need additional residential and commercial development leapfrogging along an already dangerous Hwy 93 north of the bypass terminus? We are business owners with property in downtown Kalispell and we are excited about the redevelopment potential along the railway corridor. The city can be proud of the public input process they used in creating a unifying vision for development and redevelopment in the downtown area. The city should be very concerned about opening up more development far north of the downtown core. In fact, Hutten Plaza is not yet built -out. There are hundreds of acres of potential development along the decades fought for bypass corridor. Why not let those areas bloom where traffic infrastructure already exists? This proposed subdivision will result in more stop lights, commuter frustrations and additional traffic accidents. Certainly, growth is inevitable, but true planning takes in consideration what already exists before allowing urban sprawl to diminish what makes our valley attractive to citizens, businesses, and tourist alike. Ok, now my turn. I assume you will all appreciate the input and slight levity considering the situation growing next door. As stated above, I have been a blissful occupant of Ponderosa Lane for a couple decades and then some. Do I believe myself and myfamily immune to the incessant expansion of the Flathead Valley, no. Is it the right of any land owner to do as he (or she) sees fit to profit from one's wealth in property, No. However, all of you, the planning board and county commissioners, inherited a mindset (and legal framework) created over generations of a free land, an unlimited opportunity, beauty unspoiled, manifest destiny confirmed, and expressed like mother milk. We have the opportunity to plan for the future, but yet another "Eagle this, or Mountain Vista that subdivision, just like the other subdivision, next to the other planned subdivision is unfurling. As a group, do you not consider a 3,000- foot flyover down the byways and highways only to discover a beautiful landscape scarred by so many uncompleted, in the middle off, barely off the ground, perhaps next year, subdivisions? I drive every corner of the Flathead Valley as I have for some 25 years in my line of work. I have seen the field turned over for the last time, only to reveal years of construction and upheaval. Finish what you start! It is unacceptable to approve yet another subdivision when they are EVERYWHERE. As a "PLANNER" does this seem like, OK? Apparently it is in the "plan" to have stop lights all the way to Whitefish? Surly you have been on the I-5 corridor between Seattle and Portland? What a poorly planned mass of humanity. Miserable overcrowded people sitting in traffic knowing they will be doing this, seven days a week until they move the hell out of there. Closer to home is the Coeur-d-elaine through Hayden corridor heading north. The Flathead Valley has recreated that stop and go BS on a smaller scale, but now, you, the "planners" are posed to expand north and replicate gridlock, stop and go, and ultimately misery for the once happy Flathead Valley occupants. Can you not see it? Do you really think this is a great idea? I drive every day, and usually several times a day to and from the Ponderosa Estates location to Kalispell (and of course Whitefish). I will use 93 or WF Stage as those are the roads heading in the right direction. This proposed subdivision will adversely affect already horrible traffic and further erode the road beds and add to an overloaded infrastructure. Do you travel the Reserve, 93, WF Stage, Hutton Plaza area every day? I do and it sucks. Often times, nearly impassable along Reserve and those poor folks heading north to Reserve in the morning. I drive past them and see the anguish in their eyes as they once again missed the light and impatiently wait in que. This quadrant of roadway will be significantly reduced to more stop and go misery. How about these Spartan Holding out of state investors pay for new four lane Whitefish Stage and four lane Reserve (including new bridges)? And while they are at it, make sure they write big checks for the schools and city infrastructure, the fire hall and sewer system expansion. Find a better location and please don't say there aren't enough subdivisions already on going (Silverbrook come to mind?). We are where we were before the crash of 2008 and sadly the only thing that will stop this madness is either actual "planning" or a horrible recession. I hope for the prior but expect the latter. Thanks for your time and we will see you at the meetings. You can reach us ajM� And Happy New Year!