Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
H6. Res. 6128, Bitterroot Heights
KALisPEii. Development Services Department 201 Ist Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/plannine REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: KPP-23-02 — Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Preliminary Plat MEETING DATE: April 3, 2023 BACKGROUND: Michael Sandefer has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval for Bitterroot Heights No. 2, a major subdivision containing approximately 4.2 acres. The subdivision would include 13 single family lots (including an existing home) and park area. The property was previously annexed into the city and was part of the original plat for Northview Heights, which is the subdivision to the north of this property. The area was shown as a portion of phase 2 and phase 3 which were never developed, although there was some supporting infrastructure constructed. The original phases included 17 lots plus the existing home (which was not a part of the original), or five more than the current proposal. The area was purchased by the Montana Department of Transportation as part of the Highway 93 Bypass construction, but a portion was unused and later put up for auction, where it was purchased by the applicant. The property is generally located on the west side of North Riding Road and south of West Northview Loop, and includes property currently addressed as 249 Three Mile Drive. The property can be described as Parcel A and Lot 1A, shown on Certificate of Survey 21303, being situated in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on March 14, 2023, to consider the request. Staff presented staff report KPP-23-02 providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the Council that preliminary plat approval be granted subject to 27 listed conditions. One public comment was received at the public hearing in addition to comments from the applicant. There also were written public comments submitted. Public comment generally focused on traffic and the mailbox area. Copies of the written comments and the minutes of the meeting are attached. The public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KPP-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the 27 conditions. Board discussion concluded that the request was appropriate, and the motion was approved on a unanimous vote. RECOMMENDATION: PRELIMINARY PLAT: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve Resolution 6128, a resolution approving a request from Michael Sandefer for approval of the preliminary plat for Bitterroot Heights No. 2, a major subdivision preliminary plat consisting of approximately 4.2 acres with 27 conditions of approval, which can be described as Parcel A and Lot IA, shown on Certificate of Survey 21303, being situated in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 6128 March 14, 2023, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Staff Report Application Materials & Maps Public Comments c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 6128 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BITTERROOT HEIGHTS NO. 2, DESCRIBED AS PARCEL A AND LOT 1A, SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 21303, BEING SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, Michael Sandefer, the owner of the certain real property described above, has petitioned for approval of the Subdivision Plat of said property; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2023 on the proposal and reviewed Subdivision Report #KPP-23-02 issued by the Kalispell Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Bitterroot Heights No. 2, subject to certain conditions and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Kalispell at its regular council meeting of April 3, 2023, reviewed the Kalispell Planning Department Report #KPP-23-02, 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-23-02 are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact of the city council. SECTION 2. That the application of Michael Sandefer for approval of the Preliminary Plat of Bitterroot Heights No. 2, Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 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. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. 3. The storm water ponds shall be designed in a way that they become a visual interest to the development. Chain link fencing surrounding the retention pond as the dominant feature shall not be allowed without mitigation. The developer shall work closely with the Parks Department and Public Works to develop a design that is both visually appealing and meets the required safety guidelines. The storm water ponds will be required to be on utility lots, and access for maintenance of the ponds shall be provided in accordance with city standards. 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 any 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. New infrastructure required to serve the subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction. All design work shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This infrastructure may include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. 8. Any water and sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction and in compliance with the city's facilities update and extensions of services plans. The water and sewer main extension plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Department stating that the water and sewer mains have been built and tested as designed and approved. 9. Prior to any development of the subdivision, the property to the south which has had the benefit of the drainfield lease shall be connected to city sewer unless an alternative provision is made subject to review and approval by the Health Department and the City of Kalispell. City standards require annexation in order to connect to services. 10. The developer shall submit the street designs for any required improvements to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. Street designs shall meet the city standards for design and construction, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. 11. The street address for the home on lot 13 (249 Three Mile Drive) shall be updated to meet city and 911 response standards. 12. A full Geotech report shall be prepared and submitted for review by the City of Kalispell prior to any development work on the site. 13. 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, any private infrastructure has been constructed per city standards, and a proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work. 14. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. Utility easements for city water and sewer shall be provided to allow for the logical extension of utilities from this subdivision to adjoining properties. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be obtained stating that the required easements are being shown on the final plat. 15. 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 16. 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. 17. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of the common areas, including, but not necessarily limited to, roads, parks and open space. 18. 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. 19. 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, common area, and adjoining rights -of -way. The approved landscape plan shall be implemented or a cash -in -lieu payment for installation of the street trees and groundcover be provided to the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department. 20. A park plan shall be created and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to final plat. 21. The easement shown as "appurtenant to Lot 14 and Park" shall be clarified on the final plat. 22. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owners' association defaults on their park and open space amenity conditions. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 23. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a stormwater maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owner(s) default on the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 24. Pursuant to Sec 28.3.25 of the subdivision regulations, the final plat shall include a note stating that "The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which specifically benefit this subdivision." 25. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 26. All utilities shall be installed underground and in locations that are approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department in accordance with the Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. 27. 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 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2023. ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Mark Johnson Mayor KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING March 14, 2023 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission CALL was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham (chair), Pip Burke, Kevin Aurich, Doug Kauffman, Rory Young, Kurt Vomfell, and Joshua Borgardt. Kari Barnhart, PJ Sorensen, and Jarod Nygren represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vomfell moved and Burke seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 14, 2023, meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC None. KPP-22-07, KZC-22-05 A request from Owl Corporation and Flathead Village Greens, LLC, for a zone STILLWATER VILLAGE change from R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Residential) covering approximately 182.15 acres, as well as a request for major preliminary plat approval for Stillwater Village, a subdivision with eight (8) phases containing a total of 181 lots (67 detached single- family and 114 attached single-family homes) on approximately 46.78 acres in lots, streets, common areas, and land held for future development. Additionally, the plat contains approximately 20.01 acres as park area and park access (for a total of approximately 66.79 acres) to serve both the initial eight phases and future phases on the overall property that are not part of the initial preliminary plat. The property is located south of Silverbrook Estates, west of Highway 93 and Hagerman Lane, north of Northern Pines Golf Course, and bordering the Stillwater River on the western edge of the property. The property can be described as Tracts 1 and 2 of Certificate of Survey No. 22183, on file and of record in Flathead County, Montana, located in the SW 1/4 of the SE '/4 and the SE %4 of the SW %4 of Section 13 and the N '/2 of the NE'/4 and the NE'/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 24, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P.M.,M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report AKZC-22-05 and #KPP-22-07. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff reports #KZC-22-05 and #KPP-22-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zone change and preliminary plat for Stillwater Village Phases 1-8 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), wetland setback, pedestrian access, lighting and light pollution, and issues with Highway 93. Sorensen advised that the developer is only responsible for the impact that they create and Haskins advised that the MDT is not required to move forward with the City's TIS recommendations. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Bergstrom — 135 W Monture Ct — Owns property adjacent to the proposed subdivision - Expressed concerns about the lack of buffer between the 2 subdivisions, traffic on Hwy 93, the zone change being uncharacteristic of Silverbrook or Northern Pines, and losing her mountain views. She would like for the zoning to remain R-2. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Pagel Heather McDonald — 304 Fox Hollow Ct — Northern Pines HOA President — Has concerns regarding density, Hwy 93 traffic, and light pollution. She requested a speed study between Reserve Dr. and Church Dr.. Will Warberg — 102 Quail Ct — Supports Ms. McDonald's comments and requested traffic mitigation recommendations. Rodney Fowler — 115 Grouse Haven Way — Silverbrook HOA President — Is concerned for motorist safety, loss of service, increased traffic on Hwy 93, and density. He requested the Board delay their decision so staff can further evaluate and encourage all parties to collaboratively address the Silverbrook HOA concerns. Dennis Bar — 110 Sage Grouse Way — Expressed concerns for public safety due to increased traffic and stated that there are contradictions between the staff report and the TIS. He requested that this be sent back to the planning department to re-evaluate the TIS. Rob Braig — 210 Wild Pine Ct — Concerned about comments from Fish, Wildlife & Wildlife comments, the lack of detail for the entire 182 acres, lighting, and higher density for R-4 zoning. He requested plans for all 182 acres. Eric Mulcahy — Sands Surveying — Representing the developer — Provided a brief history of the parcel and advised that the developer did not apply for preliminary plat for the entire 180 acres because it would be a massive project and they could not predict the land use. He stated that that the TIS is presently under review with Kalispell Public Works and MDT. MOTION — KZC-22-05 Kauffman moved and Young seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KZC-22-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zoning for the property be changed from R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION Board members discussed comments regarding the zone change and how it fits in the growth policy, the traffic impact study, the buffer between the subdivisions, and street lighting. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION — KPP-22-07 Young moved and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KPP-22-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Stillwater Village Phases 1-8 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. KPP-23-02 BITTERROOT A request from Michael Sandefer for preliminary plat approval for Bitterroot Heights HEIGHTS NO.2 No. 2, a major subdivision containing approximately 4.2 acres. The subdivision would include 13 single family lots and park area. The property is generally located on the west side of North Riding Road and south of West Northview Loop, and includes property currently addressed as 249 Three Mile Drive. The property can be described as Parcel A and Lot IA, shown on Certificate of Survey 21303, being situated in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KPP-23-02. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page 12 Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Bitterroot Height No. 2 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed subdivision regulations and acceptance of third - parry sound study reports. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Mulcahy — Sands Surveying — Representing the developer — Provided a brief summary of the project. Renae Solum — 33 W. Northview Loop — Expressed concerns with the location of the mailboxes and traffic on 3 Mile Drive. MOTION — KPP-23-02 Vomfell moved and Aurich seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Bitterroot Height No. 2 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Kauffman, Graham, and Young stated that this is a good infill project. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. KA-23-02, KPP-23-03 CREEKSIDE A request from Brent Holdings, LLC, for annexation and initial zoning of R-4 SUBDIVISION (Residential), along with a request for major preliminary plat approval for Creekside Subdivision, a residential subdivision on approximately 24.51 acres with 71 lots (35 detached single-family and 36 attached single-family), along with streets, parks, and open space. The property is located at 1111 Farm -to -Market Road and is more particularly described as Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-23-02 and KPP-23-03. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Reports #KA-23-02 and KPP-23-03 as amended as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the annexation and preliminary plat be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed sewer conditions, geotech, subdivision regulations related to buildable lots and use of alleys as the primary means of access. Young felt that the proposed subdivision did not meet the subdivision regulations. Sorensen advised that the interpretation of the regulation is consistent with to how the city has applied the standard in the last 20 or more years. PUBLIC COMMENT Nick Venturim —1145 Farm to Market Rd — Lives directly north of the property. Has concerns for wildlife impact, land use, livestock, and trespassing. Cindy Verzalik — 951 N Camas Ln — Lives directly across from the property. Concerned about cars going in and out, traffic sounds, and losing her mountain views. Tina Venturim — 1145 Farm to Market Rd — Lives directly north of the property. Concerned about trespassing, increased traffic, and impact -additional students will Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page13 have to West Valley School District. She also is concerned that a 20ft alley is not wide enough for fire trucks. Francisco Carbajal — 456 Mountain Vista Way — Concerned about water supply, increased traffic, and speed limits. Jordyn Mallet— Morrison-Maierle — representing the developer — Advised that the developer is collaborating with other developers nearby on water and sewer with the City. Andi Kitzmiller — 487 Mountain Vista Way — Has electrical grid concerns and will lose his mountain views. MOTION — KA-23-02 Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded recommended that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city R-4 (Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION Young could not support the application due to his interpretation of the subdivision regulations and because he is concerned that the alley width may not meet the International Fire Code width requirement. ROLL CALL Motion passed 6-1 on a roll call vote. MOTION — KPP-23-03 Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Creekside Subdivision be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members discussed site distances, access to the subdivision, and comments regarding infrastructure, taxes, the nearby shooting range, water supply, and visualization. MOTION — KPP-23-03 Kauffman moved and Vomfell seconded to amend the conditions of KPP-23-03 to AMENDMENT include condition 36 the westernmost alley located between lots 30AB through 34AB and Lots 35A/B through 39AB shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a minimum paved width of 20 feet to provide for fire access. As a private alley, the covenants shall require that the alley be free of parked vehicles and other obstacles. ROLL CALL — KPP-23-03 Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. AMENDMENT ROLL CALL — KPP-23-03 Motion passed 5-2 on a roll call vote. KCU-23-01— A RAY OF HOPE A request from Dave McLean as director of A Ray of Hope for the expansion of its facility at 46 Fifth Avenue West, which is located in the B-3 (Core Area Business) zone. The expansion involves the construction of an approximately 1280 square foot garage on the rear of the lot. The garage would include an apartment in the second story. The property was granted a conditional use permit for a private shelter in March 2005 and this conditional use permit would be considered an expansion of the prior approval. The property can be more particularly described as Lot 6 of Block 159 of Kalispell Addition No. 1, Kalispell, Montana, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT Kari Barnhart representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-23-01. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page 14 Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-23-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed the CUP conditions. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave McLean -200 Harris Ranch Rd — Director of A Ray of Hope — provided a brief summary of the program which includes multiple tests, goal setting, and counseling. He also advised that there would not be an increase in density. Rudy Kessner-134 Garden Dr — Supports the CUP because it serves the community. MOTION — KCU-23-01 Vomfell motioned and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-23-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members discussed the conditions of the CUP and the benefits it would provide to the community. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Sorensen advised the board that there will be no Planning Board Meeting in April. Nygren advised the board that there are 30+ bills in Helena that may affect the Planning Department function and encouraged board members to reapply if their term is up to maintain experience on the board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:53pm. Chad Graham President APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kirstin Robinson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page 15 Development Services Department IKA-L]ISPEILIL 201 1st Avenue East Kalhone ell, 17 59901 -794 Phone (40fi} 758-7940 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Small; planning C@kalispell.com Website: www.kalisQell.com Project Name Property Address Bitterroot Heights No. 2 249 Three Mile Dr NAME OF APPLICANT Micheal Sandifer Applicant Phone (406) 212-8713 Applicant Address P.O. Box 901 city, State, Zip Columbia Fall, MT 59912 Applicant Email Address msandefer@charter.net and sandefer.mike@gmail.com if not current owner, please attach a letter from the current owner authorizing the applicant to proceed with the application. OWNER OF RECORD Same owner Phone Owner Address City, State, Zip Owner Email Address CONSULTANT (ARCHITECTlENGINEER) Phone Foley Engineering 406.291.3331 Address , CityState, Zip 105 Village Loop, Suite B Kalispell, MT 59901 Email Address brent@foleyeng.com POINT OF CONTACT FOR REVIEW COMMENTS Phone 755-6481 Sands Surveying, Inc attn. Eric Mulcahy Address Zip City, State, 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 Email Address eric@sandssurveing.com List ALL owners (any individual or other entity with an ownership interest in the property): Legal Description (please provide a full legal description for the property and attach a copy of the most recent deed): Parcel A and Lot 1A of COS 21303 in Sections 1, T 28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County Please initial here indicating that you have verified the description with the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder and that the description provided is in a form acceptable to record at their office. KALISPELL Development Services Department 2011stAvenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone (4061 758•7940 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: Number of lots or rental spaces 13 Total Acreage in subdivision 4.197 Total Acreage in lots 3.645ac Minimum size of cots or spaces 6034 Sf Total Acreage in streets or roads n/a Maximum size of lots orspaces 1,812 net ac Total acreage in parks, open spaces and/or common spaces 0.552 ac PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTSISPACES: Single Family 13 Townhouse Mobile homelRV Park Cam me rcialllndustrial Multi -family Other APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT: R-3 ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS: $30,000Iac PROPOSED EROSIONISEDIMENT CONTROL: AS required ARE ANY SUBDIVISION VARIANCES REQUESTED? No IYES/NO) If yes please complete a separate subdivision variance application APPLICATION PROCESS (application must be received and accepted by the Kalispell Planning Department 35 days prior to the Planning Board hearing) A pre -application meeting with the planning staff is required. 1. Completed preliminary plat application 2. Copy of pre -application meeting form and any required submittals listed on the form 3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations) 4, One reduced size copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed 11 "x1 T' in size 5. Electronic copy of the application materials, including the preliminary plat, either copied onto a disk or emailed to planning@kalispclJ.com (Piease note the maximum file size to email is 20MB) 6. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing the location and boundaries of the property "Note - verify with the Flathead County Clerk & Recorder that the legal description submitted is accurate and recordable. They can be reached at (406) 758 5526. 7, Environmental Assessment (see appendix B in subdivision regulations) if applicable. 8. Application fee based or the schedule below made payable to the City of Kalispell: Major Subdivision $1,000 + $125 per lot Major Subdivision Resubmittal $1,000 for each original lot unchanged add add $10 per lot for each lot re-designed/added add add $125 per lot Mobile Home Parks & Campgrounds 6 more more spaces $1,000 + $250 per space 5 or fewer spaces $400 + $125 per space Amended Preliminary Plat amendment to conditions only $400 base fee re -configured proposed lots base fee + $40 per lot add additional lots or sublots base fee + $125 per lot 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 incorrect or 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 City staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. �� �.�a4'7441'-e, l- /a- 2el�'Z3 Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Preliminary Plat Application Supplements For: Michael Sandifer Appendix A.II.: Supplements to Preliminary Plat • A vicinity Map is included on the face of the preliminary plat. • Included with this application is a Quitclaim Deed showing MDT conveying the property to Michael Dean Sandefer. A complete title report will be submitted with the final plat showing ownership, mortgages, liens, etc. • The Drainfield Easement Cancelation for the drainfield easement shown on COS 21303. • A draft set of CC&R's for Canopy is included with the application package. The CC&R's address the maintenance of park and drainage system. From a taxing standpoint, each lot owner will own 1/13th of the common/park area and be responsible for 1/13th of the property taxes on the common elements. • The City requires 0.03 acres of parkland per lot in urban scale developments. The 13 lots proposed requires a dedication of 0.39 acres. The proposed development is proposing 0.552 acres of parkland. The park will include a trail connection from the sidewalk along West Northview Loop and the pedestrian path on the Highway 93 Bypass. A park bench or picnic table will be added to the park area. • Preliminary sewer, water and stormwater plans are provided with the application. • The subdivision will be developed in a single phase however the homes will be constructed over a period of time. • The proposed subdivision is an infill development as there are urban scale developments along the north, south and eastern boundaries project. The Highway 93 Bypass is the western boundary. • Per 76-3-616 of MCA and Appendix A.II.0 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, -we are requesting an exemption from the Environmental Assessment/Impact Criteria Report as the subdivision application meets the following: a) The proposed subdivision is entirely within the city limits of Kalispell which has a Growth Policy adopted by the City Council and is also compliant with State Statute. 2 Village Loop Kalispell Montana 59901 406.755.6481 b) The proposed subdivision is zoned by the City of Kalispell and the zoning complies with the City's Growth Policy. c) The proposed subdivision has direct access to City sewer and water. Sewer and water mains are adjacent to the property in North Riding Road Avenue. Stormwater will be addressed on -site. Also, as this is an urban infill subdivision there are no impacts to agriculture, agricultural water user systems, wildlife, or sensitive wildlife habitat. Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Preliminary Plat Application Supplements For: Michael Sandifer Appendix A.II.: Supplements to Preliminary Plat • A vicinity Map is included on the face of the preliminary plat. • Included with this application is a Quitclaim Deed showing MDT conveying the property to Michael Dean Sandefer. A complete title report will be submitted with the final plat showing ownership, mortgages, liens, etc. • The Drainfield Easement Cancelation for the drainfield easement shown on COS 21303. • A draft set of CC&R's for Canopy is included with the application package. The CC&R's address the maintenance of park and drainage system. From a taxing standpoint, each lot owner will own 1/13th of the common/park area and be responsible for 1/13th of the property taxes on the common elements. • The City requires 0.03 acres of parkland per lot in urban scale developments. The 13 lots proposed requires a dedication of 0.39 acres. The proposed development is proposing 0.552 acres of parkland. The park will include a trail connection from the sidewalk along West Northview Loop and the pedestrian path on the Highway 93 Bypass. A park bench or picnic table will be added to the park area. • Preliminary sewer, water and stormwater plans are provided with the application. • The subdivision will be developed in a single phase however the homes will be constructed over a period of time. • The proposed subdivision is an infill development as there are urban scale developments along the north, south and eastern boundaries project. The Highway 93 Bypass is the western boundary. • Per 76-3-616 of MCA and Appendix A.II.0 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, -we are requesting an exemption from the Environmental Assessment/Impact Criteria Report as the subdivision application meets the following: a) The proposed subdivision is entirely within the city limits of Kalispell which has a Growth Policy adopted by the City Council and is also compliant with State Statute. b) The proposed subdivision is zoned by the City of Kalispell and the zoning complies with the City's Growth Policy. c) The proposed subdivision has direct access to City sewer and water. Sewer and water mains are adjacent to the property in North Riding Road Avenue. Stormwater will be addressed on - site. 3 Homestead Phases 3 & 4-Wilkinson (26 Lots) Est. Costs Preliminary Plat (Major) Survey Work Complete Initial Design and Preliminary Plat Map 5,400.00 Pre -Application Prep and Meeting 430.00 Subdivision Application 120.00 TIS N/A Wetland deliniation (might need to update with anew firm) complete Environmental Assessment 3,600.00 Wildland Fire Management Plan 640.00 Riparian Resource Plan 840.00 Additonal Maps (Floodplain, Slope, Phasing) 230.00 Compliling Copies of Application Materials 280.00 Planning Board Hearing 210.00 County Commissioner Meeting 160.00 Subtotal 11,910.00 County Preliminary Plat Fees 1,235+90/1ot+ 75= 3,575.00 Consulting Engineers Test holes and DEQSubmittal Material Water system Subtotal $0 Prelininary Plat Subtotal 15,485.00 Final Plat Surveying and set pins 18,255.00 Preparing Final Plat Map 2,160.00 Securing approvals (Road Approach, Fire, Post Office, Etc) 1,100.00 Final Plat application and Documentation 2,200.00 Title Repot and Tax Certification 250.00 County Commissioner Meeting 110.00 Subtotal 24,075.00 County Final Plat Fees 985 +60/ 1 of = 2,545.00 Recorinding Fees to Flathead County 350.00 Final Plat Subtotal 26,970.00 Montane Department of Transportation Right—of—Way6ureau Pp Box 2u1001 Helena, MT Z9620-101 l �IIIIIII�I�IIIIIVIi�i��ii��i��ii»i�iI��III�I 3III'�I III�hN�FI�IIII III�IIV��I III �99a�I oogf,p2D1 oebblaPl#rsoMFlatheadSountV14TbY1W A/19/1�tl�101RM w� W Montana Department of Transportation � i�10T'RMI56 010 Quitclaim Deed :" Page11af2 o RM IM: MT-NH-NCPD 1 a(76) Parcel No.: 59 & 84 County: Flathead Designation. Kalispell Bypass Project No.: 2038-07e-000 Ref. Project: NH-NCPD-MT-PLH-TC$P S-3(60)109 This Deed, made this F-41"i- day of �{ t 2022, in consideration of the sure) of One Dollar ($1,00) and other good and valuable consideration now paid, the receipt and sufficiency of which Is acknowledged, witnesses that the State of Montana by and through fts Department J of Transportation, Grantor, does hereby grant bargain, sell and convey to: Michael Dean Sandefer PO Box 901 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 Grantee, the following -described property: Parcel A and Lot 1A, shown on Certificate of Survey 21303, being situated in the SE114SW1/4 of Section 1, Township 26 North, Range 22 West, P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana, containing an area of 4.196 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO all rights of ingress and egress over and across the limited access control lines as shown on said Certificate of Survey 21303, Quitclaim Deed # 201000016343, Bargain and Sale Deed # 201000018248, Quitclaim Deed # 201000019345, Bargain and Sale Deed # 201000018246, and Quitclaim Deed # 201900032861 as effected through the Access Control Resolution # 2010000034550 for highway projects NH- NCPD-MT-PLH TCSP 5-3(60)109 & MT-NH-NCPD 15(76) approved by the Transportation Commission, filed With the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Flathead County. SUBJECT TO any existing easements or utilities apparent or of record. Grantor grants the right of reasonable access to and from the adjacent property of the grantor. It is expressly intended and agreed that these reservations, burdens, and restrictions shall nun with the land and shall forever bind the Grantees, their successors, and assigns. P ,. I JiNlII�II®�I��Nid'IYW�i11 dIIlIiIN Milli li1eil® Page; ar 2002 Fee®: $16.00 4/19/2022 9:24 AN QUlialalm Deed RW ID: MTNH-NCPD 15(76) Parcel No,: 59 & 84 Daslgnagon: Kallspsll Bypass Subject to (a) reservations and exceptions in patents from the United.States or the State of Montana; (b) visible easements, easements of record, and rights of way; (c) all building,use, zoning, sanitary, and environmental restrictions, (d) taxes and assessments from the date hereof and for all subsequent years, and (e) utility lines and facilities occupying the right-of-way pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. g 69-4-101. To have and to hold the above -described and conveyed premises, with all the reversions, remainders, tenements, heredltaments and appurtenances thereto, unto said Grantee, and'to his heirs, personal representatives and assigns forever. This, Deed is given pursuant to Mont, Code Ann. Title 60, Chapter 4, without covenants, and reserves to Grantor easements for rights -of -way for the benefit of the United States and all other reservations to - Go �®r'ffie4stbte'n Atkss . S cretary of State Approved as to fomr; Page 2 of 2 Montana Deoanmeni of Transportation Right -of -Way Bureau PO Box 201001 Hefena, NIT 59620-1001 Canceled on 12/12/2021 Revised I v612009 State of Montana Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Bureau 2701 Prospect Avenue PO Box 201001 Helena, MT 59620-1001 Project No.: MT-NH-NCPD 15(76) Parcel No 64 Kalispell Bypass 2038-076-000 DRAINFIELD LEASE AGREEMENT This Lease Agreement (Lease) is effective the 10th day of August, 2010, between the Montana Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as Lessor and Steven and Cindy Radosevich, 1583 McMannamy Draw, Kalispell, MT 59901, hereinafter referred to as Lessee. WHEREAS, the Lessor is the owner of a 80' X 100' tract of land situated in Lot 1 of the Bitterroot Heights Subdivision located in the SE'/4SW'/a of Section 1, Township 28 North. Range 22 West in Flathead County, MT and shown as the red tract on the attached Exhibits (Lessor's Property). WHEREAS, the Lessee is the owner of a certain real property in Flathead County, Montana described as a tract of land situated in the SE%SE'/.SW'/4 of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West and shown as the blue tract on the attached Exhibits (Lessee's Property). Whereas Lessor and Lessee have agreed upon a certain use of Lessor's Property by Lessee for the time period herein specified as a drain field for a septic system serving Lessee's Property. In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, it is hereby agreed by and between the Lessor and Lessee as follow 1. Lease. Lessor shall (ease to Lessee the property described as Lessor's Property for use as a septic drain field serving the Lessee's Property. Such drain field shall be for the single family house presently located on Lessee's Property. 2. Term. The Lease herein granted shall be effective as of August 10, 2010 extend for a period ending on the earlier of- (a). the expiration of one year from the effective date of this Lease, or (b). the failure of the said drain field in which case the Lessee shall immediately contact the City of Kalispell for connection to the city sewer mains along either Three Mile Drive or North Riding Lane. In the event of connection to the city sewer mains, Lessee shah give Lessor thirty (30) days' advance notice in writing of the termination of the Lease term. The Page 1 of 4 Lease may be extended, after the initial one year term, from year to year upon payment of the annual rental and approval of the Lessor. 1 Payment. Lessee agrees to pay Lessor the sum of Three Hundred Sixty Five dollars and no cents ($365.00) during the term of this Lease, payable in advance, in annual installments on the first day of each calendar year in which this Lease applies The original period of this Lease shall be paid on a pro -rated basis from August 10, 2010 to January 1. 2011. 4.. Title. The Lessee shall, by the execution of the agreement acknowledge and defend the title of the Lessor at ali times It is mutually understood and agreed that the execution of this Lease shall not be construed as an abandonment, relinquishment of title, or non-use of the property. 5. Connection to City Sewer. If Lessee connects to the City of Kalispell sewer at any time during or following the expiration of this Lease in a manner that disturbs the surface of Lessor's Property, Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, remove any existing drain field and restore the surface of Lessor's Property by leveling and reseeding the affected area. 5. Structure. The Lessee agrees that no fixture, building, structure or other permanent installation shall be constructed or placed upon the Lessor's Property. 7.. Permits. The Lessee agrees to prepare any necessary environmental documents and obtain any permits required by other governmental agencies at no expense to the Lessor- 8. Sign. The Lessee shall not erect or permit to be erected any billboard or other outdoor advertising signs upon the land herein described. 9 Hazardous Waste. The Lessee shall refrain from deposition or discharging either intentionally or negligently any hazardous wastes upon the premises. Lessee agrees to remove and undertake and pay all cost and expense associated wrath necessary cleanup to the premises in the event of the Lessee's breach of this paragraph. Lessee agrees to provide Phase I review for hazardous wastes if requested by the Lessor prior to the termination of this Lease. 10. Hold Harmless. Lessee covenants and agrees it will hold harmless and indemnify the Lessor from all actions, claims and liabilities to third parties, arising out of Lessee's use of the herein described premises Lessee covenants and agrees it will maintain General liability insurance, naming the State as co-insured in the amount of one million dollars combined single limit per occurrence and two million dollars aggregate single limit per occurrence to cover all such actions, claims and liabilities and Lessee agrees to provide proof of said insurance upon signing of this Lease. Failure to provide said proof of insurance will be cause for terminating this Lease. Furthermore, the Lessee agrees that is shall hold Lessor and any of Lessor's agents or employees harmless from any damage to the drain field caused by Lessors' or Lessors' agents' or employees' good faith use of the surface or improvements to the surface, such as farming, fencing or other good faith activities. 11. Noxious Weeds. The Lessee shall maintain the Lessor's Property in a neat and attractive manner at ail times and shall not store or permit debris, junk, or other unsightly matter to accumulate and shall eradicate all noxious weeds. 12_ Termination. The Lease may be terminated by either party, at any time, without cause, for convenience, by serving upon the other party written notice of termination at least thirty (30) days in advance. Page 2 of 4 13 Sublease. The Lessee may not sublease, rent, or permit the use of Lessor's Property without written consent from the Lessor. 14 utility. It is mutually agreed this Lease is subject to the right of any private or public utility now lawfully occupying the said lands to continue to operate and maintain utility facilities thereupon. 15. Lien. The Lessee agrees he will not permit any ben, mechanic or otherwise, to attach to or become an obligation against the tract herein described. 16. Taxes. It is agreed the Lessee will be responsible for any taxes or assessments against the tract herein described. 1T Binding Effect it is agreed the Lessee shall not acquire a compensable interest in the leasehold estate during the term of this Lease - This Lease shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators, and assigns of the parties hereto. 18, Entire Agreement. This Lease, including the Exhibits hereto, expresses the enure agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter. It is not subject to the terms of any other document, agreement, understanding, or prior agreement signed by the parties, specifically referring to an intent to modify its terms. 19. Montana Law. This Lease shall be governed by and enforced according to Montana law, as such law exists from time to time during its term LESSEE: i By: State of `l County of \ ; l 4 This instrument was acknowledged before me on i 7 ,11 (date) (name of person(s)) VEANNA LANIMAS AMAY S Iat6 of Montaao SEAL ` gFyyu�¢atF.afmatdaFull$,Maitarta t commistran EzRtraa Jury 29, 1113 Notary Signature Line Notary Printed Name Notary Public for State of Residing at: My Commission Expires: Page 3of4 LESSOR: STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By i/ �� `L:;�2 wane E. Kaitey, r.E. Chief Operations E ffit;er State of Montana ) } County of Lewis & Clark } On this �%ay of J A n 20 before me Shane C. Mintz, a Notary Public in and for the State of Montana, personally appeared DWANE E. KAILEY, P.E., Chief Operations Officer, Director's Office of the Montana Department of Transportation, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. HA E C. MINTZ .}Y y T r NOTARY PUBUG for the a�S�R4 State d Montana SEAL and y �cFuu`` "MI040 Q JV"q 23, 20!E 4 Ap oved stoo Form & Content: ' " ttome`y ; r- Notary Signature Line ( Shane C. Mintz Notary Printed Name Notary Public for State of Montana Residing at: Helena My Commission Expires: 01/2312014 Page 4 of 4 Ve w lo 160 L. Z,f " TO PPA>m7-Y Z,INIF `. EXHIBITLessor's property Prz a I; ,-, d 7 p Lessee's property 9�-5eA4CFV7- &'tz- 4D "30 gap 77-7 Alr-4 071p z ter, IOD D"-?- PAI rr-) v6 A.IeW - POL/1).c- T"Ol P 4 Pw— R—IV-1 7D DgA / fJ r-4 n C) ry 4 qei,4w i6mo. SEE SKf: NJ. i-d Pplr qn{— Y++4S�3—A+E e . SO 511• .•5fxa+* sRrvE SEC. 1 i ,eCfJli4EER eRnF L m -- ..... - a a NWz NW+ � �11 SEC. 1 2 nil $ ' ' j C t [. OvaRGAA +Sl5E rr Rdrv+r d'ror Rv+O �rRr r F• F. r •counf\ R.. r10' Wln rE, Ew [yl C•sCr GRtO STATE PLANE COORDINATES A. CmP PRRiEE I. Nsmx; RKr xeFs +M ueEu RN rxR papiE[l aRf Gq. ErCEPr Cor rc ES4rrf RSOA •x RECRRe. fOR f.•5rnw PiR MIR.cC.FNi. SEE cpi PUlmX uLL[ E•C,oR 6 a. aSS•rmas CERINx,rF Qi swrF• ra. raE if SEF s [ul e,o.ss 4 qx[•r .np r,6r • .o., w .M m.er p••[6 .r, w rr.rw µppJlC,xNWIER r ie5\�Ory c�E,\pfrc em•ss r S�lr6R,rn l :'PO:. YQ i61f9.6 ® SEE SW' SEC. } RrclEa,raar r[aas xnoneraR P.a r. \i•e;. s5 s E w•�r]r • P. w w ees� ,xE wA c Ir \Rn�e.w nrg �u.e.-rz .s BI ID •lC-�--,_-�GI T,�S.r r•��n� fY. R/R _f, aie 9` _ ®flocs \ h0[c r di f1KE •RE 558anr5mlr Eal 5 I Z • q � u� i � ad I . oN r: I �SSsaS �u�rcR i; v AB S NEeNriz L,Ql� •Q\,i] SEC- 12 �lDCT� EXHIBIT RRppvsEO R/N Lessor's property [.asm.-re irs - C,>ssoe`s prnperty ': e. :o'a�.`r::v. n],LF�Ii{ niaE, N 5. x.rt FKSM, M5b rF [a �Porv,wn wrnmEs vlr. M ��rZ h ,f6ErVr MIEtw[. IswrS U[ gEaarsrExr vrm�axsrroR,.ror RrGEA 1lAT PLAN RATAT i[Ap COWT> m"a,�riov Erri.`� r-�� .oar .iPreV.r � ��� _ a DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF Bitterroot Heights No 2 THE UNDERSIGNED, Michael Dean Sandefer, a Limited Liability Company (herein known as the "Developer") of P.O. Box 901, Columbia Falls, MT 59912, hereby encumbers and restricts the real property situated in Flathead County, Montana, known as Lots 1 - 13 of Bitterroot Heights No 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in the records of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Flathead, State of Montana (the "Plat") with this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Bitterroot Heights No. 2 (referred to herein as the "Declaration") as set forth below, and declares that the real property shall at all times be owned, held, used and occupied subject to the provisions contained in this Declaration and to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained herein from and after the date this document is recorded with the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder's office. The property shall not be used, nor shall any activities be conducted on it in violation of this Declaration. ARTICLE I Purpose Section 1.1 Purposes. The purposes of this Declaration are to ensure that Bitterroot Heights No 2 Subdivision maintains park areas within the subdivision along with any stormwater drainage systems within the common area (Park). ARTICLE II Common Properties Section 2.1 Park Properties. Common Properties means the property, which is subject to this Declaration, but excluding the individual lots within the property. The Park Area is labeled on the Bitterroot Heights No 2 Final Plat as Park. The Park Properties shall include any common areas that are shown on the Plat of Bitterroot Heights No. 2, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. Section 2.2 Maintenance of Park Properties. The Homeowners Association shall maintain the park areas in attractive state with mowing and weed management. . Section 2.3 Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance. The stormwater drainage systems located within the park areas shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association as prescribed in the Bitterroot Heights No 2 Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance Plan and found in Exhibit `A' of this document and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2.4 Easement Over All Common Properties. The owners shall have an easement for use and enjoyment of all of the Common Properties, subject to such rules and regulations as the Homeowners Association may develop from time to time, and also subject to the rights reserved to Developer. Access to the Park are is from the 30-foot access and utility easement shown on the Plat of Bitterroot Heights No. 2. Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage Section 2.5 Property Taxes. It is acknowledged that, for property tax purposes, Flathead County and the State of Montana may allocate to each lot a fractional, proportional portion of the value attributable to the Common Properties. By accepting a deed to a lot the owner agrees to this mechanism for property taxation and agrees to pay a proportional share (as allocated by Flathead County and the State of Montana) of the taxes attributable to the value of the Common Properties, while at the same time allowing the Homeowners Association to administer and control the Common Properties. Section 2.6 Insurance on Park Area. The Homeowners Association shall maintain the following types of insurance: property insurance, liability and comprehensive fidelity to the extent that such insurance is reasonable and available, considering the availability, cost and risk coverage provided by such insurance, and the cost of such coverage shall be included in the budget and shall be paid by the Homeowners Association as a common expense. ARTICLE III Homeowners Association Section 3.1 Membership in the Association. The members of the Homeowners Association shall consist of the owners of each lot of the Subdivision. Each owner covenants and agrees that he/she will automatically be and will remain a member of the "Bitterroot Heights No 2 Homeowners Association Inc. (known as the "Association") so long as the property owner retains any ownership interest in any lot located within this Subdivision. By accepting the conveyance of the property, the owner binds himself to abide by this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Association, and the reasonable rules and regulations of the Association, which may be adopted by the Board of Directors from time to time. Upon sale of a lot, the membership associated with that lot shall be deemed automatically transferred from the former lot owner to the purchaser of such lot. Such transfer shall not relieve the former lot owner of any obligations incurred by such former lot owner prior to the transfer. For the purposes of membership in the Association, the purchaser under any contract for deed notice of which is recorded in the real estate records of Flathead County, Montana, shall be considered the owner. Section 3.2 Membership Dues. Membership dues for the Homeowners Association are estimated at $100.00 per calendar year, (said dues are an estimate and shall be adjusted as needed by the Homeowners Association). Section 3.3 Voting. The Owner(s) of each lot shall be entitled to a single vote in the Association for each lot owned, except that the Developer shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each lot owned by the Developer. When more than one person holds an interest in any lot, all such persons shall be members of the Association. The vote for such lot shall be exercised as they determine, but in no event shall more than one (1) vote be cast with respect to any lot; except the Developer may cast three (3) votes for each lot it holds. Section 3.4 Bylaws. The bylaws of the Association shall govern the conduct of meetings of the members of the Association, the Board of Directors and other aspects of the operation of the Association not addressed in this Declaration. Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 2 Section 3.5 Management During Period of Developer Control. The "Period of Developer Control" shall mean the period beginning on the date this Declaration is first recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, and ending on the earlier of: (a) the date which is 10 years later or (b) the date on which the Developer has sold 80% of the lots within Bitterroot Heights No 2 Subdivision and the Developer has notified the Association in writing that the Developer has determined that no additional property shall be added to the Subdivision. During the Period of Developer Control, Developer may appoint, remove and replace from time to time any or all of the Directors and Officers of the Association. Each member of the Association gives the Developer an irrevocable proxy for this purpose. If Developer so elects, Developer may from time to time relinquish, either on a temporary or permanent basis, the right to appoint all or a portion of the Directors and Officers of the Association; provided that any such relinquishment shall be expressed in writing to the Association. The Period of Developer Control may be reinstated or extended by agreement between Developer and the Association upon such terms and conditions as the parties agree. After the termination of the Period of Developer Control, the Developer, if still an owner of any lots in the Subdivision, will continue to have all the rights ordinarily given to owners under this Declaration. Section 3.6 Assessments. Each property owner agrees to pay to the Association such annual dues and assessments as the Board of Directors shall determine. Such dues and assessments may include amounts for operation of the Association, payment of insurance on Common Properties, Common Properties maintenance, utilities, snow removal, and specifically hiring of Stormwater Drainage Maintenance System, a fund for acquisition or replacement of capital improvements, legal and accounting fees, reasonable reserves and any and all other matters determined to be appropriate by the Association for the benefit of the owners and approved or assessed in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures of the Association. The Association dues and assessments shall be the same for each lot of the Subdivision. Section 3.7 Developer's Responsibility for Assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer, although a member of the Association, shall not be responsible at any time for payment of the Assessments with respect to lots owned by the Developer. The foregoing shall include Association dues and assessments, amounts assessed, levied or charged with respect to the water system, and any other amounts charged, levied or assessed any Subdivision lot owner with respect to ownership of property within the Subdivision, except that Developer shall pay its pro -rated share of property taxes assessed against Common Properties within the Subdivision. Developer's share of the property taxes shall be calculated based on the number of lots owned by Developer as of the date each property tax payment is payable. Also, the Developer shall at all times pay all expenses of maintaining the lots that it owns, including any improvements located thereon. For lots that are sold by Developer during a year, the assessments for that year shall be pro -rated and paid by the purchaser at closing. Section 3.8 Collection of Assessments. Assessments shall be the personal responsibility of the owners of each lot. In addition, assessments shall be a lien on each lot. Failure to pay assessments will result in a lien statement being filed by the Board of Directors, which shall describe the lot, state the amount of the unpaid assessment and the date of such assessment. If any assessment is not paid when due, the assessment shall accrue interest at fifteen percent (15%) per annum until paid (or such other rate as the Board of Directors may establish from time to time). A lot owner whose lot is subject to lien must pay the assessment, interest, and costs for preparation of the lien and lien release, and all recording fees before the lien is released. The Association is empowered to initiate any legal action to enforce payment of any past -due assessments, dues, or fees including an action to foreclose any lien on a Subdivision Lot. This lien may also be foreclosed in the manner of foreclosure for mortgages. In the event of litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney's Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 3 fees and costs. The voting rights of an owner whose assessments are delinquent shall be suspended during the period of delinquency. Section 3.9 Priority of Lien for Assessment. The lien of the assessments will be superior to and prior to any homestead exemption provided now or in the future by the laws of the State of Montana, and to all other liens and encumbrances except the following: a. Liens and encumbrances recorded before the date of the recording of this Declaration. b. Liens for property taxes and other governmental assessments or charges made superior by statute. C. The lien for all sums unpaid on a First Mortgage, as defined below. A "First Mortgage" is a mortgage, deed of trust, trust indenture, contract for deed, or other similar financial encumbrance granted by an Owner to secure a debt, (1) which is recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, before the date of filing of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments, (2) which encumbers a lot, and (3) which is first in priority among all such mortgages, deeds of trust, trust indentures or other similar financial encumbrances. There can only be one First Mortgage with respect to a lot. Any First Mortgagee who acquired title to a lot by virtue of foreclosing the First Mortgage or by virtue of a deed or assignment in lieu of such a foreclosure, or any purchase at a foreclosure sale of the First Mortgage, will take the lot free of any claims for unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees against the lot which accrue prior to the time such First Mortgagee or purchaser acquires title to the lot. All other persons who hold or who may in the future hold a lien or encumbrance of any type not described in subsection a., b. or c., will be deemed to consent that their lien or encumbrance will be subordinate to the Association's future liens for assessments, interest, late charges, costs, expenses and attorney's fees, as provided in this Article, whether or not such consent is specifically set forth in the instrument creating any such lien or encumbrance. Section 3.10 Protection of First Mortgage. No violation or breach of, or failure to comply with, any provision contained in this Declaration and no action to enforce any such provision shall affect defeat, render invalid or impair the lien of any First Mortgage on any property taken in good faith and for value and perfected by recording in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, prior to the time of recording in said office of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments. No violation, breach, failure to comply or action to enforce this Declaration shall affect, defeat, render invalid or impair the title or interest of the holder of any First Mortgage or result in any liability, personal or otherwise, of any such holder or purchaser. Any purchaser upon foreclosure shall, however, take subject to his Declaration. Section 3.11 Statement of Status of Assessments. On written request, the Association will furnish to an owner or his designee or to any mortgagee a statement setting forth the amount of unpaid assessments then levied against the lot in which the owner, designee or mortgagee has an interest. The information contained in such statement, when signed by an officer, director or agent of the Association, will be conclusive upon the Association, the Board of Directors, and every owner as to the person or persons to whom such statement is issued and who rely on it in good faith. Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 4 Section 3.12 Liability. Neither the Developer, the Association, Design Review Board, nor their respective members, directors, employees nor agents shall be responsible for any actions taken by any of the lot owners. Article IV Duration and Amendment Section 4.1 Duration of Declaration. The provisions of this Declaration are intended to be easements and covenants running with the land, and are intended to be perpetual, except as amended or terminated as provided below. Section 4.2 Amendment after Period of Developer Control. After the Period of Developer Control, this Declaration may be amended or repealed as provided in this Section. Any amendment shall require the consent of the owners of sixty percent (60%) of the lots. Such consent may be evidenced by written consent or by vote at a regular or special meeting of the members of the Homeowner's Association, or by a combination of written consents and votes. If such consent is received, the Association shall then record in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document stating the action taken, together with a sworn statement certifying that the required consent was received. Section 4.3 Unilateral Amendment By Developer. At any time before or after the Period of Developer Control, so long as Developer owns a lot, Developer may unilaterally amend this Declaration (1) if such amendment is solely to comply with applicable law or correct a technical or typographical error, (2) if such amendment does not adversely alter any substantial rights of any owner or mortgagee, or (3) in order to meet the guidelines or regulations of a lender or insurer including, but not limited to, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration or any similar agency. Such amendments shall not require approval of any Owners. Article X General Provisions Section 5.1 Effect of Provisions of Declaration. Each provision contained in this Declaration, and any agreement, promise, covenant, and undertaking to comply with each provision contained in this Declaration, and any necessary exception or reservation or grant of title, estate, right or interest to effectuate any provision contained in this Declaration: (a) shall be deemed incorporated in each deed or other instrument by which any right, title or interest in any real property within the Subdivision is granted, devised or conveyed, whether or not set forth or referred to in such deed or other instrument; (b) shall, by virtue of acceptance of any right, title or interest in any real property within the Subdivision by an owner of the Association, be deemed accepted, ratified, adopted and declared as a personal covenant of such owner or the Association, as the case may be, and, as a personal covenant, shall be binding on such owner or the Association and such owner's or Association's respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns; (c) shall be deemed an equitable servitude, running, in each case, as a burden with and upon the title to each parcel of real property within the Subdivision; and (d) shall be deemed a covenant, obligation and restriction secured by a lien binding, burdening and encumbering the title to each parcel of real property within the Subdivision. Section 5.2 Enforcement and Remedies. Each provision contained in this Declaration shall be enforceable by the Association, by the Developer or by any owner who has first made written Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 5 demand on the Association to enforce such provision and (30) days have lapsed without appropriate action having been taken by the Association. Any enforcement action may be by a proceeding for such relief as may be provided at law or in equity, including but not limited to a temporary or permanent injunction and/or a suit or action to recover damages. Such action may be brought against any person(s) violating or threatening to violate a provision of this Declaration. None of the remedies, which are stated in this Declaration, are intended to be exclusive, and all parties shall have all such remedies as may be provided by law. Section 5.3 Limited Liability. Neither the Developer, the Association, or, their respective members, officers, directors, employees or agents shall be liable to any part for any action or for any failure to act with respect to any matter if the action taken or failure to act was in good faith and without malice. Section 5.4 Successors and Assigns. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions contained in this Declaration shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Developer, the Association, and each owner and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Developer may assign some or all of its rights under this Declaration to a third party by a written instrument specifically referring to such rights recorded in the records of Flathead County, Montana. Such instrument may specify the extent and portion of the rights or interests as a Developer, which are being assigned in which case the initial Developer shall retain all other rights of Developer. Section 5.5 Severability. Invalidity or unenforceability of any provision contained in this Declaration in whole or in part shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Declaration. Section 5.6 Captions. The captions and headings in this instrument are for convenience only and shall not be considered in construing any provision of this Declaration. Section 5.7 Construction. When necessary for proper construction, the masculine of any word used in any provisions contained in this Declaration shall include the feminine or neuter gender, and the singular the plural, and vice versa. Section 5.8 No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision contained in this Declaration on any one or more occasions shall not operate as a waiver of any such provision or of any other provision of this Declaration. Section 5.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a dispute arising under any provision contained in this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable cost and attorneys' fees incurred. Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 6 DATED this day of , 20 0 STATE OF MONTANA ) :ss County of Flathead ) Michael Dean Sandefer. On this day of , 20_ before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State aforesaid, personally appeared , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person executed the same in such person's authorized representative capacity on behalf of NDI, Inc., the entity that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such entity executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for the State of Montana Print or type name Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 7 EXHIBIT "A" Bitterroot Heights No 2 Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance Plan Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and RestrictionsPage 8 +0 VNtl1NOW `A1Nno3 Otl3HltlldIle a N F �WpY -tdbboil y�pb Z'ON S1HJ13H 1002R131118 �Jz 'Yi .!'�s w �/ LLwva ��1 D°J � w x bd SNISVS 31HOLSIN o W 0 0 M N N o W � J N 0 +0 VNtl1NOW `A1Nno3 Otl3HltlldVe a N F �WpY -tdoil 2&,0 ;k Z'ON S1HJ13H 1002R131118 �Jz 'Yi .!�s w �/ LLwva ��1 D°J � w x bd SNISVS O3dOl3A3O o W L 1 /)lull\\\ 1 z \ \ w \ \ l I w I wad \ \ A I \ z-1u yw / �\ I oU z o U \\ \ \ \ \ I\0 z ' \ \\\ \ \ \ \ _ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > a W o z V \ Uu wWU \' \ \— HISTORIC -A SQFT: 41,983 ACRES: 0.96 HISTORIC-B AREA SQFT: 34,618 ACRES: 0.79 HISTORIC-C AREA SQFT: 50,137 ACRES: 1.15 HISTORIC-D AREA SQFT: 55,728 ACRES: 1.28 SQFT: 42,197 ACRES: 0.97 DEVELOPED-B AREA SQFT: 69,303 ACRES: 1.59 DEVELOPED-C AREA SQFT: 15,499 ACRES: 0.36 DEVELOPED-D AREA SQFT: 55,728 ACRES: 1.28 SCS CURVE NUMBER CALCULATIONS Bitterroot Heights No. 2 NOTE: All basins are hydrologic soil group B and developed lots assume 2,300 SF impervious area Total Basin Area= 4.197 Acres IMPERVIOUS OPEN SPACE SQFT: 7,063 SQFT: 34,920 CN: 98 CN: 58 (Asphalt, Concrete, Bldgs) (Meadow, Type B Soil) IMPERVIOUS OPEN SPACE SQFT: 2,636 SQFT: 31,982 CN: 98 CN: 58 (Asphalt, Concrete, Bldgs) (Meadow, Type B Soil) IMPERVIOUS OPEN SPACE SQFT: 2,475 SQFT: 47,662 CN: 98 CN: 58 (Asphalt, Concrete, Bldgs) (Meadow, Type B Soil) IMPERVIOUS LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE SQFT: 6,156 SQFT: 23,587 SQFT: 25,985 CN: 98 CN: 61 CN: 58 (Asphalt, Concrete, Bldgs) (Good Open Space, Type B soil) (Meadow, Type B Soil) IMPERVIOUS OPEN SPACE SQFT: 18,337 SQFT: 23,860 CN: 98 CN: 61 (Asphalt, Bldgs) (Good Open Space, Type B soil) IMPERVIOUS OPEN SPACE SQFT: 22,288 SQFT: 47,015 CN: 98 CN: 61 (Asphalt, Bldgs) (Good Open Space, Type B soil) IMPERVIOUS OPEN SPACE SQFT: 2,062 SQFT: 13,437 CN: 98 CN: 61 (Asphalt, Bldgs) (Good Open Space, Type B soil) IMPERVIOUS LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE SQFT: 6,156 SQFT: 23,587 SQFT: 25,985 CN: 98 CN: 61 CN: 58 (Asphalt, Bldgs) (Good Open Space, Type B soil) (Meadow, Type B Soil) COMP CN= 64.7 COMP CN= 61.0 COMP CN= 60.0 COMP CN= 63.7 COMP CN= 77.1 COMP CN= 72.9 COMP CN= 65.9 COMP CN= 63.7 Hydrograph Return Period Recap Hydraf w Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph No. type hyd(s) Description (origin) 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 1 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.002 ------- ------- 0.010 ------- ------- 0.128 HISTA 2 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.001 ------- ------- 0.006 ------- ------- 0.041 HIST B 3 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.000 ------- ------- 0.007 ------- ------- 0.045 HIST C 4 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.002 ------- ------- 0.012 ------- ------- 0.109 HIST D 5 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.028 ------- ------- 0.204 ------- ------- 0.637 DEV A 6 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.013 ------- ------- 0.135 ------- ------- 0.678 DEV B 7 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.001 ------- ------- 0.004 ------- ------- 0.098 DEV C 8 SCS Runoff ------ ------- 0.002 ------- ------- 0.012 ------- ------- 0.109 DEV D Proj. file: BITTERROOT HEIGHTS BASINS 12-28-22.gpw Friday, 12 / 30 / 2022 Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 0.002 1 1269 57 ------ ------ ------ HISTA 2 SCS Runoff 0.001 1 1440 7 ------ ------ ------ HIST B 3 SCS Runoff 0.000 1 1440 3 ------ ------ ------ HIST C 4 SCS Runoff 0.002 1 1317 52 ------ ------ ------ HIST D 5 SCS Runoff 0.028 1 606 596 ------ ------ ------ DEV A 6 SCS Runoff 0.013 1 775 576 ------ ------ ------ DEV B 7 SCS Runoff 0.001 1 1214 29 ------ ------ ------ DEV C 8 SCS Runoff 0.002 1 1317 52 ------ ------ ------ DEV D BITTERROOT HEIGHTS BASINS 12-28-22. peturn Period: 2 Year Friday, 12 / 30 / 2022 Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 0.010 1 784 449 ------ ------ ------ HISTA 2 SCS Runoff 0.006 1 1122 211 ------ ------ ------ HIST B 3 SCS Runoff 0.007 1 1149 253 ------ ------ ------ HIST C 4 SCS Runoff 0.012 1 1060 520 ------ ------ ------ HIST D 5 SCS Runoff 0.204 1 603 1,566 ------ ------ ------ DEVA 6 SCS Runoff 0.135 1 607 1,855 ------ ------ ------ DEV B 7 SCS Runoff 0.004 1 758 186 ------ ------ ------ DEV C 8 SCS Runoff 0.012 1 1060 520 ------ ------ ------ DEV D BITTERROOT HEIGHTS BASINS 12-28-22. gpeturn Period: 10 Year Friday, 12 / 30 / 2022 Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 0.128 1 608 1,712 ------ ------ ------ HISTA 2 SCS Runoff 0.041 1 618 1,054 ------ ------ ------ HIST B 3 SCS Runoff 0.045 1 621 1,393 ------ ------ ------ HIST C 4 SCS Runoff 0.109 1 620 2,112 ------ ------ ------ HIST D 5 SCS Runoff 0.637 1 602 3,732 ------ ------ ------ DEV A 6 SCS Runoff 0.678 1 604 4,981 ------ ------ ------ DEV B 7 SCS Runoff 0.098 1 598 663 ------ ------ ------ DEV C 8 SCS Runoff 0.109 1 620 2,112 ------ ------ ------ DEV D BITTERROOT HEIGHTS BASINS 12-28-22. gpeturn Period: 100 Year Friday, 12 / 30 / 2022 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 1 HIST A Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.011 0.170 0.170 Flow length (ft) = 58.0 42.0 35.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 1.40 Land slope (%) = 1.30 1.30 2.60 Travel Time (min) = 1.41 + 9.72 + 6.37 = 17.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 0.00 105.00 93.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 2.60 4.70 3.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) =2.60 3.50 2.79 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.50 + 0.55 = 1.05 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 18.50 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 2 HIST B Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.170 0.011 0.170 Flow length (ft) = 68.0 32.0 50.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 1.40 Land slope (%) = 2.30 2.30 5.20 Travel Time (min) = 11.37 + 0.70 + 6.42 = 18.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 115.00 43.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 3.40 4.10 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =2.98 3.27 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.64 + 0.22 + 0.00 = 0.86 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 19.30 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 3 HIST C Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.011 0.170 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 45.0 155.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.80 4.20 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 1.40 + 17.28 + 0.00 = 18.67 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 42.00 105.00 140.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 3.60 3.80 4.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.06 3.15 3.23 Travel Time (min) = 0.23 + 0.56 + 0.72 = 1.51 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 20.20 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 4 HIST D Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.170 0.170 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 100.0 133.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 0.00 Land slope (%) = 3.10 4.40 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 13.74 + 15.01 + 0.00 = 28.75 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 28.70 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 5 DEV A Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.011 0.170 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 58.0 42.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 1.40 Land slope (%) = 1.30 1.30 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 1.41 + 9.72 + 0.00 = 11.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 35.00 113.00 71.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 2.60 3.80 3.90 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) =2.60 3.15 3.19 Travel Time (min) = 0.22 + 0.60 + 0.37 = 1.19 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 12.30 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 6 DEV B Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.170 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 100.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 2.90 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 14.11 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 14.11 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 159.00 199.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 4.20 4.40 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.31 3.38 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.80 + 0.98 + 0.00 = 1.78 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 15.90 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 7 DEV C Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.011 0.170 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 82.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 0.00 Land slope (%) = 4.00 4.80 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 1.18 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.18 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 159.00 87.00 128.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 4.00 4.80 4.80 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.23 3.53 3.53 Travel Time (min) = 0.82 + 0.41 + 0.60 = 1.83 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 3.00 min TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hyd. No. 8 DEV D Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.170 0.170 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 100.0 133.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 1.40 1.40 0.00 Land slope (%) = 3.10 4.40 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 13.74 + 15.01 + 0.00 = 28.75 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 4.40 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.38 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 28.70 min ��. VNtl1NOW `113dSllVM N �mg'e q�do �b � ■ LLgQ° ti,����,ti N Z 'ON SIHO13H IOOHH311113 m w 0 ��d g Ntlld 311S ltlld-3Hd a w o� amA` - m ;_ �y ' w o rcp na FmNmma'o Uwr z `o�w� � oW 1 w -oNo rwo`i'i p-z - ; S _ z= <�v r A e dOOI M31ANIMoN M �.� `� l eap�noe i�rens v r 7 - - - r s. i roe �� W, ----- - - _AP.- �I f =. �0ol -,------- oI'`�-- --- - ----- , _,--_ � � - I, � -----_ -_—__- __ _ _—_--_c,����� cwt"---�----- i ----- ---- -- 3AIM. 3lIW 33NX1 / ------------- __------ ---- -- _ �_ ��. VNtl1NOW `1l3dSllVM N �mg'e q�do �b - " ■ Z 'ON SIHO13H IOOHH311113 m w 0 ��d g Ntlld All un ltlld-3Hd a w N o� of _ -- QaoQrcrc �~ - ora % s�FwQ Q--` F.w g3uouN Px .ter--\/ I—---—�1 —�— /teit a w I I l 2XI dOOl M31AN1LON M—w� s STD I5 0) V c Ad � i r By. SANDS SURVEYING, Inc. Preliminary Plat Of Village 'lage MT 5990] Kalispell, MT BITTERROOT HEIGHTS No. 2 (406) 755-6481 JOB NO: 58030] An Amended Plat of Lot 1, Bitterroot Heights Subdivision (Shown as DATE. August 16, 2022 Lot 1A on C.O.S. 21303) FOR/OWNER: Michael Dean Sandefer Located In SE114SW114 SEC. 1, T.28N., R.22W., P.M.,M., CITY OF KALISPELL, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA � � � oleo seasaan's aenen� � �. •` ` ��—� 1 � _— xD.as• as ! I l / i D.Ita 1 I i I 0.151 Af. I \ l (evvs.s EDA t wVU O.1M0 I f i -- II 1 �ee.ee' 1 e 1tAp� o �.` Tya "y+ j9ved r — �I II .w � /V \ 1 -----� --- 1 i L i r 9TC`—_-- R 'D _-------_— 10 AC. leoasz .,yn) a PAW 3045 D.t:o Ac. --------_ Tatal Aree� 4.}D7 Ac. � D.t10 AC S. North view Ct. L01 (14) 3,799 Park 0,398 30 � 9a S i w o — --- — — D.ISD A.DR3CRlPPfON.——-- _ —— leoee.z aq.n.) S IUTIIA- @CARTER Or THE—T—T OR @DARTER SECTION IRETo _ -- y TANA, Np xARR PA_ ,� 9 �e� AS r_WS To --, �-- v.—A 1. ° aum� . a zI a rr moat' . a, (A>sa)�a easements o1 re ord th and g er w,th ➢P tenant — _ � na o'Zi � � l 1 egoAp51�— i/vl 1 (poe e45 LEGEND O Set 1/0 x24' —, & Cap (1—S) ® roam ]ReroaTa G roam %6" Reber &can (B626LS) o roam s/e" aeanr & enp (13111) FINAL TRAFFIC NOISE TECHNICAL STUDY FOR KALISPELL BYPASS Project No. NH: 5-3 (59) 109 Control Number 2038 Prepared for: Montana Department of Transportation 2701 Prospect Avenue Helena, MT 59620 August 2006 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Background........................................................................................1-1 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA....................................................................................................2-1 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS...............................................................3-1 3.1 Traffic Noise Model.........................................................................................3-1 3.2 Traffic Model Input Data................................................................................3-2 3.3 Data Coordination..........................................................................................3-8 3.3.1 Ambient Noise Measurements..............................................................3-8 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................4-1 4.1 Existing Noise Levels........................................................................................4-3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..................................................................5-1 5.1 Impacts During Construction (Construction Noise)...................................5-1 5.2 Impacts During Operation (Future Traffic Noise Levels) ............................5-4 6.0 MITIGATION..........................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Mitigation Options...........................................................................................6-1 6.2 Noise Mitigation Barriers Considered...........................................................6-2 6.2.1 Southeast Noise Barrier...........................................................................6-7 6.2.2 Northeast and Northwest Noise Barriers...............................................6-8 6.3 Coordination with Local Government Officials.........................................6-9 6.3.1 Noise Compatible Land Use Planning................................................6-10 7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................7-1 8.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................8-1 TOC-i Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Noise Receivers and Impacts.....................................................................1-2 Figure 2 - Southeastern Proposed Mitigation Area..................................................6-4 Figure 3 - Northwestern and Northeastern Proposed Mitigation Areas ................6-5 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)...................................................2-2 Table 3.1: Traffic Data Input into Noise Model.........................................................3-2 Table 4.1: Ambient/Existing Noise Level Readings...................................................4-3 Table 5.1: FHWA Construction Noise Abatement Criteria......................................5-1 Table 5.2: Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA).........................................5-2 Table 5.3: Traffic Noise Model Results..........................................................................5-5 Table 6.1: Land Use Category B Mitigation...............................................................6-6 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Land Use Maps APPENDIX B: Reasonable and Feasible Checklist - CD APPENDIX C: Noise Model Input and Output Files - CD APPENDIX D: Information for Local Officials TOC-ii Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass KEY TERMS A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure levels in decibels measured with a frequency weighting network corresponding to the A -scale on a standard sound level meter as specified by ANSI S1.4-1971. The A -scale tends to suppress lower frequencies, e.g., below 1,000 Hz and best approximates the sound as heard by the normal human ear. It is the most widely used weighting system for assessing transportation -related noise. Acoustically Representative: A receiver location which represents the same type and magnitude of noise as another location. For good acoustical representation roadway geometry, topography, traffic flow, distance from source to receiver should all be nearly the same. Acoustic Energy: Commonly referred to as sound energy, or just plain energy, acoustic energy is arithmetically equivalent to 10 [sound Pressure Level (SPL)/lo]where SPL is expressed in decibels. (FHWA, Measurement of Highway -Related Noise, 1996, page 5). Ambient Noise: All -encompassing sound that is associated with a given environment, excluding the analysis system's electrical noise and the sound source of interest (FHWA, Measurement of Highway -Related Noise, 1996, page 5). Approach: This term has been defined by MDT as one decibel (dBA) below the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria. Benefited Receptor: A dwelling unit expected to receive a noise reduction of at least 6 dBA from the proposed noise abatement measure, if the dwelling unit is a first -row home. A multi -story residence counts as one benefited receptor even if the proposed noise abatement provides 6 dBA for the exterior (e.g. balconies) of two or more floors or individual units. The definition is primarily used in the determination of noise abatement reasonableness. Second -row homes that receive at least a 4 decibel reduction in noise will be counted as benefited receptors. Apartment complexes of up to 4 units will be counted as one benefited receptor. Date of Public Knowledge: The date that a project is approved, i.e., approval of the final environmental documentation is completed (e.g. Record of Decision). TOC-iii Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): A 24-hour time -averaged sound level, adjusted for average -day sound source operations. In the case of highway noise, a single operation is equivalent to a single vehicle pass -by. The adjustment includes a 10 decibel penalty for vehicle pass-bys occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., local time (FHWA, Measurement of Highway - Related Noise, 1996, page 7) . Decibels (dB): A unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power, the number of decibels is 10 times the base 10 logarithm of this ratio. For the purpose of this document, the reference level is 20 pPa, or the threshold of human hearing (FHWA, Measurement of Highway - Related Noise, 1996, page 8) . Design Year: The future year used to estimate the probable traffic volume for which a highway is designed. Design year is a time, usually 20 years, from the completion of construction. Existing Noise Level(s): The current noise level, resulting from the natural and mechanical sources and human activity, considered normally present in a particular area. First Row Homes: Homes that will be closest to a noise barrier or berm. Generally, first row homes will experience the highest reduction in noise with the construction of this type of noise abatement. FHWA Type I Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases the number of through -traffic lanes. FHWA Type II Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid project for noise abatement on an existing highway. Impacted Receivers: Receivers - generally residences - that will receive a traffic noise impact from the construction of a project. Insertion Loss: The actual acoustical benefit derived from the construction of a noise barrier. Leq: The equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time -varying sound level during the same time period. Leq(h) is the hourly value of Leq (23 CFR 772.5). TOC-iv Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Federal legislation that establishes environmental policy for the nation. It provides an interdisciplinary framework to ensure that decision -makers adequately take environmental factors into account. Noise Abatement: Various design and/or traffic management measures taken to reduce or eliminate (mitigate) noise impacts. Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC): FHWA determined noise levels for various activities or land uses which represent the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise level conditions. These levels are used to aid in identifying traffic noise impacts. Noise Barrier: Sound walls or earth berms constructed to mitigate noise impacts. Sound walls, if constructed, generally must provide a 7 dBA reduction in noise. Noise Mitigation: See noise abatement, above. Planned, Designed and Programmed: A noise sensitive land use (subdivision, residences, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries) is considered planned, designed and programmed when it has received final development approval (generally the issuance of a building permit) from the local agency with jurisdiction. Noise: Any unwanted sound. Noise Barrier: A solid wall or earth berm, or combination of berm and wall, located between the roadway and receiver location, which breaks the line -or - sight between the receiver and the roadway noise sources. Peak Traffic Hour: Highest hourly traffic volume in a 24-hour period. Predicted Noise Level: Future noise levels, resulting from the natural and mechanical sources and human activities, considered being usually present in a particular area, including the project. Receivers: Locations selected for determining traffic noise impacts. These locations should represent areas where frequent human use occurs or is likely to occur in the foreseeable future (e.g., vacant property for which development plans are planned, designed and programmed). Substantially Exceeds: Design Year noise levels (Leq(h)) which are 13 decibels (dBA) or higher than existing noise levels. TOC-v Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Shielding: Any man-made or natural structure or barrier that provides a visual and/or auditory barrier between receiver and roadway or a portion of roadway. For example, rock outcrops, thick stands or trees, buildings. Traffic Noise Impact: Impact that occurs at a receiver when one or both of the following takes place: The predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level The predicted noise level approaches or exceeds the Noise Abatement Criteria Type I Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through -traffic lanes (23 CFR 772.5). Type II Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid highway project for noise abatement on an existing highway (23 CFR 772.5). Vehicle Classes: Includes heavy trucks, medium trucks, automobiles, motorcycles and buses. Heavy trucks include any vehicle having three or more axles and designed for the transportation of cargo. Also included in the class are autos with trailers. Medium trucks include all vehicles having two axles and six wheels designed for the transportation of cargo. Automobiles include all vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for the transportation of nine or fewer passengers, or transportation of cargo (light trucks with two axles and 4 wheels). Optional vehicle classes of motorcycles and buses are available for use in TNM. Worst -Case Noise Hour: Also called peak noise hour. A period of 60 minutes throughout a 24-hour day that reflects the peak noise hour, usually associated with peak traffic hour, but not in every instance. TOC-vi Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Noise Technical study documents the traffic noise analysis conducted to evaluate the impacts of the design alternative to bypass the City of Kalispell along US 93 beginning at the southern terminus at Reference Post (RP) 109.1, and ending at the northern terminus at RP 115.9 within the city of Kalispell and Flathead County, Montana. The project length of the bypass is approximately 7.6 miles. The US 93 Bypass (bypass) would increase capacity along this section of US 93 and help to reduce the travel times for the traveling public through the City of Kalispell. The noise analysis was prepared as part of the re-evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Study (1993) for US 93 Somers to Whitefish. The noise analysis was completed in accordance with federal policy and guidelines as stated in "Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772)." The main objectives of 23 CFR 772 are "to provide procedures for noise studies and noise abatement criteria, and to establish requirements for information to be given to local officials for use in the planning and design of highways approved pursuant to Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.)." The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has also adopted a Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual (June 2001), which indicates that a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted level of noise approaches or exceeds the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) noise abatement criteria (NAC). "Approaches" is defined as within one A - weighted sound level in decibels (dBA) of the NAC, or 66 Laeg1 h dBA or greater for residential areas, schools, and parks, or when the predicted level substantially exceeds the existing noise level. "Substantial" is defined as 13 dBA or greater. These criteria have been applied to adjacent sensitive land uses as defined in Noise Criteria section of this study. ES-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass The noise impacts predicted for the Build Alternative and No Build Alternative were estimated for the Design Year 2030 using the FHWA's approved noise model, Traffic Noise Model 2.5 (TNM). Traffic volume projections consistent with peak hour volumes were used in the analysis. Traffic volumes were provided by Stelling Engineers, Inc. consultant project design engineers. Noise analyses were conducted at 70 sensitive receivers within the project area for the Build Alternative and No Build Alternative. The bypass would impact an estimated 39 receivers, 19 of these receivers would receive substantial noise increases, 5 would experience noise levels that approach the NAC, and 15 would experience both types of impact. Mitigation of noise impacts was examined for the Build Alternative. Mitigation considerations include shifting the horizontal alignment, depressing the roadway, acquiring real property, managing traffic, and constructing noise barriers. Sixteen of the impacted receivers were evaluated for mitigation measures but not examined further due to access, location, land use or cost. Nineteen of the impacted receivers were evaluated for noise barriers. A public meeting will be held with affected citizens to solicit input regarding mitigation options. The feasibility and reasonableness of each proposed mitigation measure to provide noise abatement for these receivers will be decided on by a multi -disciplinary team consisting of MDT and local representatives. ES-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Noise Technical Study presents the results of the traffic noise analysis conducted to determine potential impacts on noise -sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of the bypass around the City of Kalispell, Montana. The study includes a definition of noise; how to measure noise; traffic noise criteria; the existing noise environment; study methodology used to conduct the noise analysis, including assumptions that were input into the noise model; criteria used to determine impact; and a description of the noise -sensitive areas that were evaluated. The project area was subdivided into two representative noise areas to provide manageable geographic units. Major crossroads were used within each of these areas to further describe geographic area. These areas are identified by land use and existing activities. The Noise Criteria section of this study provides a description of the sensitive area located in the vicinity of the bypass. A description of each representative area is provided in the Methodology and Assumptions section of this study. Figure 1 depicts the representative areas and shows the 70 identified receivers. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluated potential future noise impacts associated with the bypass. The FEIS predicted that noise levels would increase from 1 to 19 dBAs along the bypass between 1993 and 2015. The FEIS identified approximately 28 receivers along Stillwater Road, West Reserve Drive, and the bypass that would approach or exceed FHWA NAC. 1-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Studv for Figure 1 — Noise Receivers and Impacts 1-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass In addition, the FEIS identified another 23 receivers along Stillwater Road, West Reserve Drive, and the bypass that were expected to receive substantial increases in noise levels from 1993 to 2015. Noise mitigation measures were recommended in the FEIS for these impacted areas, and detailed analysis of mitigation measures was recommended to be completed during the final design. While the revised bypass closely follows the alignment proposed in 1994, it has been shifted slightly to the north at the south end and shifted south at the north end. As part of the corridor preservation study, residents of the Country Estates Subdivision north of West Reserve Drive petitioned MDT to conduct a noise study and to consider an alignment shift at the north end, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts to that neighborhood. MDT subsequently conducted the analysis and determined that an alignment shift was warranted to reduce future noise impacts. In addition, several elements that affect the noise analysis have changed since completion of the FEIS: • Access along the bypass has been revised to improve safety by including six grade -separated interchanges rather than an at -grade facility. Other design changes have been proposed that will affect the geometry used in the noise model. • MDT has updated their noise policy: Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual (MDT 2001). FHWA has required the use of the Traffic Noise Model for project analysis versus the use of the older noise model, Stamina, which was used for the FEIS. • Traffic has been updated for 20 years into the future to the design year of 2030. (The FEIS analysis year was 2015). Different traffic volumes and vehicle mix (cars and trucks) affect the noise model input as the source. Development has occurred along the bypass, adding to the number of noise - sensitive properties. 1-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA Sound is created when an object vibrates and radiates part of its energy as acoustic pressure or waves through a medium such as air, water, or a solid object. Sound levels are expressed in units called decibels (dB). Since the human ear does not respond equally to all frequencies (or pitches), measured sound levels (in dB at standard frequency bands) are often adjusted or weighted according to the frequency response of human hearing and the human perception of loudness. The weighted sound level is designated as dBA, and is measured with a calibrated sound level meter. Typical sound levels experienced by people range from about 40 dBA, the daytime level in a typical quiet living room, to 85 dBA, the approximate level produced by a food blender at 3 feet. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The ability of an average individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented. Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA will be barely perceived by most listeners, whereas a 10 dBA change normally is perceived as a doubling of noise levels. The general principle on which most traffic noise acceptability criteria are based is that a perceptible change in noise that is likely to cause annoyance or interference with normal conversation in an outdoor activity area. Several descriptors are used to express noise levels, which correlate with human perception. The FHWA uses the energy equivalent level (Leq) noise exposure descriptor for assessing the impacts of roadway projects. Leq is calculated by averaging the dBA noise levels measured over a specified period of time. The FHWA and MDT assess roadway noise levels in terms of a 1-hour Leq(h), which is the average of instantaneous dBA sound levels measured over a 1-hour period. Use of Leq(h) is appropriate for traffic noise analyses because these levels are 2-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass sensitive to both the frequency of occurrence and duration of transportation noise events. To properly assess noise impacts of roadway projects, noise -sensitive land uses and activities in the vicinity of highway projects must be first identified and analyzed. Anticipated changes in noise levels for these sensitive areas must be identified during design hour conditions when the noise levels are expected to be the highest. Table 2.1 displays the FHWA NAC for varying land activity categories as presented in FHWA's Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guideline (23 CFR 772). These criteria specify noise levels considered to be the upper levels of acceptability for outdoor and certain indoor activities. TABLE 2.1 : FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA (NAC) ACTIVITY LaeglhA DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY CATEGORY dBA A 57 (Exterior) Land serving an important public need in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (Exterior) Developed land, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D — Undeveloped land. E 52 (Interiorf Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: 23 CFR 772. A Laeglh is the 1-hour A -weighted energy equivalent sound level. B The interior sound levels (activity) apply to 1) indoor activities for those parcels of land where no exterior noise -sensitive land use or activity is identified, and 2) those situations where the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that the exterior activities will not be affected by the noise, but the interior activities will be affected. 2-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass The MDT also has a Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual which indicates that a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted level of noise approaches or exceeds FHWA's NAC as follows: • Approach — Design year noise levels (Leq(h)) are predicted to be one decibel (dB) below the levels shown for the land use category in question in the NAC (see Table 2.1). • Substantially exceed — Leq(h) are predicted to increase 13 decibels (dB) above existing levels. Noise abatement measures will be considered when either or both of the above conditions are met. If an impact (exceedance of NAC) is predicted, then FHWA's procedures and MDT Policy indicate that mitigation should be considered. However, the abatement measures must be both reasonable and feasible. According to MDT's policy, "Feasibility deals primarily with engineering considerations (e.g., can a barrier be built given the topography of the location, access, drainage, safety and whether other noise sources are present)." Reasonableness is a more subjective criterion, which includes, but is not limited to, factors such as cost per impacted receiver per decibel reduction in noise, comparison of existing to future noise levels, noise abatement benefits, additional considerations that may include cultural and community values, frequency of use, aesthetics, desires of impacted residents or organizations, development trends and land use controls, life cycle of noise abatement benefits. In an area where development trends are changing from residential to commercial, it won't be reasonable to construct a wall where planned future use would limit the wall's useful life to less than 15 years. 2-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL Projected future noise levels for the "worst case" Build Alternative and for the No Build Alternative were estimated for the Design Year 2030 using the FHWA's approved noise model, Traffic Noise Model (TNM), which estimates the acoustic intensity at a receiver location resulting from traffic (the source) traveling on a series of straight-line roadway segments. Speed -dependent reference noise emission levels and vehicle density by vehicle type define the source characteristics. The roadway segment geometry considered is three- dimensional. The program considers characteristics of the path of noise transmitted between the source and the noise receiver by including the effects of intervening barriers, topography, trees, and atmospheric absorption. The modeling performed for this project included: Northbound and Southbound US 93 mainline and ramps Cross roads of the northbound and southbound lanes of Airport Road, Corporate Drive, Valley View Drive, and Garden Drive • Crossroads of the eastbound and westbound lanes of Sunnyside Drive, Foys Lake Road, US 2, Two Mile Drive, Three Mile Drive, Four Mile Drive, West Reserve Connection, and West Reserve Drive Side roads of a frontage road and loop road in the Northern Section The project area was divided into the following two representative areas to provide manageable geographic units for analysis: Southern Section — US 93 (bypass Southern Terminus) to Three Mile Drive Northern Section — Three Mile Drive to US 93 (bypass Northern Terminus) 3-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TNM was checked against ambient noise level measurements and traffic counts at the existing intersection of US 93 and West Reserve Drive. Acceptable variation between model results and measured noise levels is plus or minus 3 dB. The modeled decibels level were within 2 dBA for the existing condition and therefore validates TNM existing noise levels and predictions. In areas were there was not an existing traffic noise source in close proximity to a representative noise receiver, the ambient monitored noise levels were used for the existing noise level. 3.2 TRAFFIC MODEL INPUT DATA TNM model was run using the following input data and assumptions: TABLE 3.1 : TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L Vehicle Mix % L Vehicle Mix % a Peak a Peak v s Hour v s Hour a E Volume a E E E Volume G) L U U N L U U Q o N N L 2 Q o N N 2 s U Cn s U GENERAL: Assumed that directional split was 50/50 for worse case noise condition. Assumed all traffic volumes were at Level of Service (LOS) `C' or better. Assumed on all roadways that Peak Hour was 10% of Average Daily Traffic Volume or Number of Vehicles per Day. Existing traffic was derived using a 3.5% growth rate from traffic year 2003 to noise analysis year 2005. Vehicle Mix is assumed to be the same on all roadways with the exception of US 2 and US 93 where 8% truck volume vs. a 5% truck volume was used. Between = NB = Northbound, 5B = 5outhbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L Vehicle Mix % L Vehicle Mix % a Peak a Peak v s Hour v s Hour a Volume a - E Sk Sk Volume G) L U U N L - -0 U ; U a o L L 2 a o L L 2 s U s U SOUTHERN AREA Kalispell Bypass (KBP) - b/w US 93 and NA NA NA NA NA 750 60 92 3 5 Sunnyside Drive NB KBP b/w US 93 and Sunnyside Drive SB NA NA NA NA NA 975 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w Sunnyside Drive and Foys Lake NA NA NA NA NA 900 60 92 3 5 Road NB KBP b/w Sunnyside Drive and Foys Lake NA NA NA NA NA 1265 60 92 3 5 Road SB KBP b/w Foys Lake Road and US 2 NB NA NA NA NA NA 1265 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w Foys Lake Road and US 2 SB NA NA NA NA NA 1300 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Two Mile Drive NB NA NA NA NA NA 1175 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Two Mile Drive SB NA NA NA NA NA 1400 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Three Mile Drive NB NA NA NA NA NA 1175 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Three Mile Drive SB NA NA NA NA NA 1400 60 92 3 5 US 93 North of Bypass Terminus NB 836 60 92 3 5 750 60 92 3 5 US 93 North of Bypass Terminus SB 796 60 92 3 5 900 60 92 3 5 US 93 South of Bypass Terminus NB 836 60 92 3 5 1250 60 92 3 5 US 93 South of Bypass Terminus SB 796 60 92 3 5 1750 60 92 3 5 Airport Road NB & SB 390 50 95 3 2 600 50 95 3 2 SB & NB On Ramp at Airport Road NA NA NA NA NA 100 40 95 3 2 SB Off Ramp Airport Road NA NA NA NA NA 225 40 95 3 2 Sunnyside Drive -Northbound Ramp NA NA NA NA NA 50 25 95 3 2 Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L o Vehicle Mix % L o Vehicle Mix % i Peak i Peak v v Q- Hour Q- Hour Volume = Volume E E E E 4 N �Y U >Y Ca U N i �Y U >Y Ca U a-i U 2 Q Cn E U 2 SOUTHERN AREA (CONTINUED) Sunnyside Drive-EB/SB & WB/NB 133 25 95 3 2 50 25 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -East of KBP WB 93 35 95 3 2 400 35 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -East of KBP EB 92 35 95 3 2 170 35 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -West of KBP WB 213 35 95 3 2 460 35 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -West of KBP EB 213 35 95 3 2 200 35 95 3 2 Corporate Drive NB/SB NA NA NA NA NA 50 25 95 3 2 US 2-East KBP EB 654 35 95 3 2 675 60 92 3 5 US 2-East of KBP WB 654 35 95 3 2 1100 60 92 3 5 US 2-West of KBP EB 654 35 95 3 2 1975 60 92 3 5 US 2-West of KBP WB 654 35 95 3 2 1250 60 92 3 5 Valley View Road -NB & SB 37 25 95 3 2 40 25 95 3 2 Two Mile Drive-EB & WB 37 35 95 3 2 50 35 95 3 2 NB & SB On/Off Ramps at Foys Lake Road NA NA NA NA NA 50 40 95 3 2 NB Off Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 200 40 92 3 5 NB On Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 350 40 92 3 5 SB Off Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 325 40 92 3 5 SB On Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 225 40 92 3 5 Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-4 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L o Vehicle Mix % L o Vehicle Mix % L Peak L Peak yHour y Hour a, a, Volume E E Volume E -a N 7 Y U > Y Ca U N i 7 Y U > Y Ca U a-i � E U 2 Q Cn E U 2 NORTHERN AREA US 93-North of West Reserve Drive NB 670 60 92 3 5 1150 60 92 3 5 US 93-North of West Reserve Drive SB 670 60 92 3 5 1060 60 92 3 5 US 93-South of West Reserve Drive NB 1212 60 92 3 5 850 60 92 3 5 US 93-South of West Reserve Drive SB 1212 60 92 3 5 545 60 92 3 5 KBP-between West Reserve Drive & West NA NA NA NA NA 925 60 92 3 5 Reserve Connection NB KBP-between West Reserve Drive & West NA NA NA NA NA 850 60 92 3 5 Reserve Connection SB KBP-South of West Reserve Connection NB NA NA NA NA NA 1050 60 92 3 5 KBP-South of West Reserve Connection SB NA NA NA NA NA 1400 60 92 3 5 Frontage Road NA NA NA NA NA 101 40 95 3 2 Garden Drive -NB & SB NA NA NA NA NA 50 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -East of KBP EB NA NA NA NA NA 700 45 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -East of KBP WB NA NA NA NA NA 1000 45 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -West of KBP EB NA NA NA NA NA 700 45 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -West of KBP WB NA NA NA NA NA 850 45 95 3 2 Loop Road NB NA NA NA NA NA 454 45 95 3 2 Loop Road SB NA NA NA NA NA 284 45 95 3 2 SB On Ramp KBP-West Reserve Connection NA NA NA NA NA 450 45 95 3 2 SB Off Ramp KBP-West Reserve NA NA NA NA NA 150 45 95 3 2 Connection Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-5 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L s Vehicle Mix % L s Vehicle Mix % L Peak L Peak yHour y Hour a, a, Volume E Volume E -0 N 7 Y U � � Y Ca U N i �, 7 Y U � Y Ca U a-i � U 2 a Cn E U 2 NORTHERN AREA (CONTINUED) NB Off Ramp KBP-West Reserve NA NA NA NA NA 250 45 95 3 2 Connection NB On Ramp KBP-West Reserve NA NA NA NA NA 200 45 95 3 2 Connection West Reserve Drive -East of US 93 EB 627 40 95 3 2 875 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Drive -East of US 93 WB 628 40 95 3 2 865 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Drive -West of US 93 EB 265 40 95 3 2 60 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Drive -West of US 93 WB 265 40 95 3 2 53 40 95 3 2 Stillwater Road -NB & SB 111 35 95 3 2 388 35 95 3 2 NB Off Ramp -Three Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 300 40 95 3 2 SB On Ramp -Three Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 250 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -West of KBP EB 323 40 95 3 2 500 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -West of KBP WB 324 40 95 3 2 900 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -East of KBP EB 323 40 95 3 2 500 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -East of KBP WB 324 40 95 3 2 950 40 95 3 2 NB Off Ramp/SB On Ramp -Four Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 225 40 95 3 2 NB On Ramp -Four Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 75 SB Off Ramp -Four Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 150 Four Mile Drive -West of KBP EB & WB NA NA NA NA NA 500 40 95 3 2 Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-6 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Roadway Geometry and Sensitive Receiver Locations Roadway geometry and sensitive receiver locations were established from the roadway plan drawings, aerial photos, and cross sections provided by Stelling Engineers, Inc. The locations of sensitive receivers were identified from field reconnaissance, aerial photography, and existing mapping. Topographic features and elevations were also noted from the electronic files and from field observation and reference. Existing Earth Berms, Jersey Barriers, Privacy Walls, and Building Rows Existing earth berms were not included as there were none identified between a specified roadway segment and a specified receiver. The project area was reviewed for locations where jersey barriers could provide noise attenuation and no locations were identified. Jersey barriers may be proposed along the structures of crossroads, but the barriers were not modeled in TNM because using the barriers would not provide a "worst case" analysis for the Build Alternative. No locations were identified where a concrete privacy wall existed and blocked the line -of -sight from the receiver to the proposed bypass roadway. In locations where a vinyl or wood fence was located between a specified receiver and the proposed bypass roadway, they were not included because gaps in these types of barriers do not provide noise attenuation. There were no building rows input into the model. Terrain features were not used in the noise model as each location that was evaluated indicated a gradual change in topography or the area was predominately flat without much topographic relief. The absence of terrain lines provides a "worst case" analysis for traffic noise impacts. TNM electronic files are included in Appendix C. 3-7 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 3.3 DATA COORDINATION The MDT design consultant, Stelling Engineers, Inc., provided roadway geometry and traffic data. MDT was consulted for locations where traffic noise complaints have been received regarding the bypass within the project limits. Coordination with MDT helped to identify locations and times for field monitoring. 3.3.1 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Ambient or existing noise levels were obtained using methodology presented in the MDT Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Procedure Manual, Appendix A. Existing noise levels were recorded with a Larson -Davis, Model 820, Type I and a CEL 480 Type I integrating sound level meter and readings were taken the week of April 19 and 20, 2005, between the times of 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Traffic, by vehicle class, located on US 93 was counted using a traffic counter during monitoring times to obtain traffic counts for monitoring locations (Monitoring [M]) M1 and M12. Meteorological conditions such as temperature, humidity, and wind speed were recorded before and after each measurement. Other noise sources that were not from traffic along nearby roadways were noted during each measurement. Noise measurements were taken until noise levels during a particular sample timeframe stabilized and a minimum of three measurements were obtained at each monitoring location. Repeat measurements were obtained until the measurements agreed within 1 dBA. Noise meters were calibrated before and after each set of measurements were obtained at each monitoring location. Although the analysis of noise impacts focuses on future traffic noise, these readings establish current noise levels in the project area. 3-8 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Presently, the study area is comprised of a mixture of residential and commercial land uses (see Appendix A). The noise analysis focused on 70 specific receivers identified from sensitive land uses. All sensitive receivers within the study area are classified within activity Category B with the exception of Receivers 21 and 62, which were classified within Category C. These receivers are grouped into southern and northern area and divided out further by major cross streets (see Figure 1). Land use per area is as follows: Southern Section • US 93 (bypass southern terminus) to Sunnyside Drive — Land use north and south of the bypass between existing US 93 and Airport Road is comprised of sparsely located single-family homes (Receivers 1 to 5). Land use northwest and southeast of the bypass between Airport Road and Sunnyside Drive consists of single-family homes (Receivers 6 to 13). Receivers 6 and 7 are located in the Ashley Park Subdivision, Receiver 8 is located in the South Meadows Subdivision, Receivers 8A and 9 are located in the Stratford Village Subdivision, Receiver 10 is located in the Sunnyside Subdivision, and Receivers 11 to 13 are located on privately owned parcels adjacent to Sunnyside Drive. Sunnyside Drive to Foys Lake Road — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between Airport Road and Foys Lake Road and is comprised of low - density residential parcels (Receivers 14 to 19). Receiver 18 is within MDT's right-of-way and was included as a baseline receiver for comparing the measured noise levels with future noise levels. • Foys Lake Road to US 2 — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between Foys Lake Road and US 2. It includes one residential parcel, Receiver 20, located adjacent to Foys Lake Road. US 2 to Two Mile Drive — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between US 2 and Two Mile Drive and is comprised of single-family residences (Receivers 21 to 31). Receivers 23 to 25 are located within the Greenbriar 4-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Subdivision, and the remaining receivers are located on privately owned parcels. Receiver 21 was a single-family home that has been converted to commercial use. • Two Mile Drive to Three Mile Drive — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass and is comprised of single-family homes (Receivers 32 to 36). All receivers in this section are on privately owned parcels adjacent to the bypass and not located in specific subdivisions. Northern Section • Three Mile Drive to Four Mile Drive — This area consists of single-family homes (Receivers 37-56) located east and west of the bypass. Receivers 37, 39, 44, 45, and 48 to 50 are located within the Empire Estates Subdivision, Receiver 38 is located in the Bitterroot Heights Subdivision, Receivers 43, 46, and 52 are located in the Meadowland Subdivision, Receivers 40, 47, 51, and 53 to 56 are located on privately owned parcels adjacent to the bypass but not located in specific subdivisions. Receivers 41 and 42 are located in the Northview Heights Subdivision. • Four Mile Drive to West Reserve Connection — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve Drive and is comprised of the future high school (Receivers 57 and 57A). Receiver 57 is the entrance to the school and Receiver 57A is located within a soccer field. • West Reserve Connection to US 93 (bypass northern terminus) — This area consists of land north and south of the bypass between West Reserve Drive and US 93 is comprised of single- and multi -family residential units (Receivers 58 to 66). Receivers 58 to 61 are located in the Country Estates 1 Subdivision, Receivers 62 and 64 are located in a multi -use area, where Receiver 62 will become multi -family housing and Receiver 64 will become a new department store. Receiver 58A is located on a privately owned parcel on the north side of West Reserve Drive. Receiver 67 is located on the east side of US 93 where future college housing is planned. 4-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass The affected environment is consistent in terms of land use for the No Build and the Build Alternatives. Land use maps from the City of Kalispell are located in Appendix A. 4.1 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Ambient or existing noise level readings were taken at the twelve representative noise -sensitive locations (Monitoring [M]) shown in Table 4.1. The receivers listed are also shown in Figure 1 as identified by the Receiver (R) Number. Additionally, the average recorded noise levels are shown in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1: AMBIENT/EXISTING NOISE LEVEL READINGS MONITORING AVERAGE NOISE STUDY AREA LOCATION DESCRIPTION RECEIVER AMBIENT NOISE LOCATION LEVEL dBA US 93 and Airport Single -Family Home located Road and South of M1 just east of existing US 93 R1 56 Future b ass South of Future Interchange of Airport M2 Single -Family Residence R2 38 Road and Future bypass Between Airport Road Single -Family Residence in and Sunnyside Drive- M3 Ashley Creek Subdivision R7 47 East of Future bypass Between Airport Road Single -Family Residence in and Sunnyside Drive- M4 d Village Stratford Village R8A 48 East of Future bypass Between Airport Road Single -Family Residence in and Sunnyside Drive- M5 Sunnyside Subdivision R10 48 East of Future bypass Southwest Corner of Located just south of future Ashley View Drive and M10 Ashley View Drive in R50 45 intersection of bypass Cottonwood Estates Along West Reserve Located in vicinity of new Connection — West of M11 school R57 42 bypass Located north of US 93 and existing M12 Located at Mountain Villa R65 59 intersection of West Apartments South US 93 Reserve Drive 4-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Environmental consequences of traffic noise consist of impacts to sensitive receivers. These impacts can occur during construction of a roadway improvement project from equipment used during construction, and due to added traffic capacity after the roadway is completed. Below is a discussion of both types of impacts that would result from construction of this project. 5.1 IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION (CONSTRUCTION NOISE) Construction of the project may cause localized, short -duration noise impacts. The MDT traffic noise policy document does not specifically address construction noise. If there is a possibility of impact to noise -sensitive receivers, the policies and standards contained in 23 CFR 772.19 (construction Noise) and FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2 (Analysis of Highway Construction Noise) are applicable. Table 5.1 lists the noise abatement criteria for different land uses. TABLE 5.1: FHWA CONSTRUCTION NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ACTIVITY CATEGORY Leq(h) ho (h) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY Land serving an important public need in which serenity and A 57 (exterior) 70 (exterior) quiet are of extraordinary significance, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, B 67 (exterior) 70 (exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (exterior) 75 (exterior) Developed land, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D - - Undeveloped land. E 52 (interior) 55 (interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Note: Leq is the equivalent steady-state sound level that in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time -varying sound level during the same time period. Leq(h) is the hourly value of Leq. Llo is the sound level that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (the 90th percentile) for the period under construction. Llo (h) is the hourly value of Llo. Source: 23 CFR 772.19 5-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Construction times would need to adhere to local City of Kalispell ordinances that specifically indicates that noise from construction does not "... intentionally or unnecessarily disturb(s) the peace of any neighborhood or person by loud or unusual noise.." (City of Kalispell 19-10). Construction equipment noise levels are usually measured at 50 feet from the source, and some typical levels are listed in Table 5.2. Construction equipment noise levels decrease 6 dB per doubling of distance because of geometric divergence alone, provided there is a clear line of sight to the equipment. For example, a bulldozer creating 80 dBA of noise at 50 feet will have an observed value of 74 dBA at 100 feet and 68 dBA at 200 feet. TABLE 5.2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE (dBA) TYPES OF ACTIVITIES TYPES OF EQUIPMENT RANGE OF NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET Materials Handling Concrete Mixer 75-87 Concrete Pump 81-83 Crane moveable 76-87 Crane derrick 86-88 Stationary Equipment Pump 69-71 Generator 71-82 Compressor 74-87 Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrench 83-88 Rock Drill 81-98 Land Clearing Bulldozer 77-96 Dump Truck 82-94 Grading Scraper 80-93 Bulldozer 77-96 Paving Paver 86-88 Dump Truck 82-94 Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Short-term construction noise impacts can be minimized by using standard methods for the control of noise sources during construction. These measures may be grouped generally as follows: 5-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass • Community Relations: Early communication with the general public reduces noise complaints. The public should be informed of any potential construction noise impacts and the measures that will employed to reduce these impacts. Also, a responsive complaint mechanism should be established and publicized for the duration of the project; • Design Considerations: Early coordination and communication with project designers can greatly aid in locating and sequencing construction operations to minimize potential construction noise impacts at sensitive receivers. Noise elements (i.e., compressors, haul roads) can be located in less sensitive areas, making use of any existing natural or artificial features that can shield the constructions noise. Alternative construction methods can also be employed to lessen potential construction noise impacts (i.e., cast -in -place piles rather than driven piles, rubber -tired equipment rather than steel -tracked equipment). Further, idling equipment should be turned off whenever not in use. Equipment operators should drive forward instead of backward , whenever possible, lift instead of drag materials, and avoid mechanical scraping or banging activities to do work that can be accomplished by quieter manual methods; • Source Control: New construction equipment is generally quieter than older equipment. Special, very quiet types of new equipment are also available. However, specification of the exclusive use of new, quiet construction equipment on a project can be very costly and is usually justifiable only in cases of extremely severe noise impacts. Control of noise from exiting construction equipment is usually limited to requirement for mufflers and continuous good maintenance on all equipment. Additional modifications to construction equipment for noise reduction are usually not reasonable to large increases in cost; • Site Control: Measures to abate highway construction noise can modify the time, place, or method of operation for a particular noise source. The measure most often used is the limitation of work hours on a construction site. Work that does not need to be done at night should be confined to daytime hours. When work must be done at night, the contractor should complete the noisiest work as early in the time period as possible. Building temporary noise barriers or special equipment enclosures is usually quite expensive and limited to instances of severe construction noise impacts. 5-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 5.2 IMPACTS DURING OPERATION (FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS) Table 5.3 presents the modeling results for traffic noise generated by the future northbound and southbound (four total) lanes of the US 93 bypass and crossroads. The existing noise levels were obtained either from TNM or field monitoring. As noted in the Noise Criteria section of this study, MDT Policy states that noise impacts on sensitive receivers (residences, schools, public open spaces, etc.) would require consideration of noise mitigation when the predicted noise level exceeds the 2003 existing noise level by 13 dBA, or more, or when the predicted noise level is greater than 66 Laeq 1 h dBA. The table reveals that noise levels are predicted to increase from 0 to 27 dBAs, which is similar to the FEIS predictions. The modeling identifies that the bypass would impact an estimated 39 receivers, a decrease in the number of impacts reported in the FEIS, 19 of these receivers would receive substantial noise increases, while 5 would experience noise levels that approach the NAC, 15 would experience both types of impact. Figure 1 shows these estimated impacts. 5-4 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 5.3: TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL RESULTS RECEIVER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONA EXISTING (2005) NOISE LEVEL TNM *MONITORED LEVEL FUTURE (2030) NOISE LEVEL: MODELED LaegIh (dBA) SHADING= IMPACTC MDT APPROACH LEVEL (A) OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE (S) OR BOTH (B) INCREASE OVER EXISTING LEVEL MITIGATION CONSIDERED ? 1 SFR 53/56 68 A 12 No 2 SFR 38* 63 S 25 No 3 SFR 38* 64 S 26 No 4 SFR 51 59 - 8 No 5 SFR 52 60 - 8 No 6 SFR 47* 64 S 17 Yes 7 SFR 47* 65 S 18 Yes 8 SFR 48* 55 - 7 No 8A SFR 48* 64 S 16 Yes 9 SFR 48* 63 S 15 Yes 10 SFR 48* 63 S 15 Yes 11 SFR 48* 59 - 11 No 12 SFR 48* 60 - 12 No 13 SFR 45 66 B 21 No 14 SFR 46 59 S 13 No 15 SFR 55* 58 - 3 No 16 SFR 55* 57 - 2 No 17 SFR 55* 57 - 2 No 18 p 55* 70 B 19 No 19 SFR 46 57 - 11 No 20 SFR 47 58 - 11 No 21 C 55* 66 - 11 No 22 SFR 51 63 - 12 No 23 p 49* 61 - 12 No 24 SFR 49* 59 - 10 No 25 SFR 51 56 - 5 No 5-5 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 5.3 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL RESULTS RECEIVER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONA EXISTING (2005) NOISE LEVEL TNM *MONITORED LEVEL FUTURE (2030) NOISE LEVEL: MODELED LaegIh (dBA) SHADING= IMPACT MDT APPROACH LEVEL (A) OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE ($) OR BOTH (B) INCREASE OVER EXISTING LEVEL MITIGATION CONSIDERED ? 26 SFR 47 56 - 9 No 27 SFR 40 61 S 21 No 28 SFR 49* 59 - 10 No 29 SFR 49* 62 S 13 No 30 SFR 46 66 B 20 No 31 SFR 46 67 B 21 No 32 SFR 47 60 S 13 No 33 SFR 41 61 S 20 No 35 SFR 43 56 S 13 No 36 SFR 56 60 - 4 No 37 SFR 50 58 - 8 No 38 SFR 61* 63 - 2 No 39 SFR 47 69 B 22 Yes 40 SFR 43 62 S 19 Yes 41 SFR 40 67 B 27 Yes 42 SFR 45* 64 S 19 Yes 43 SFR 45* 61 S 16 Yes 44 SFR 45* 66 B 21 Yes 45 SFR 45* 66 B 21 Yes 46 SFR 45* 57 - 12 No 47 SFR 45* 68 B 23 Yes 48 SFR 45* 68 B 23 Yes 49 SFR 45* 66 B 21 Yes 50 SFR 45* 67 B 22 Yes 51 SFR 45* 67 B 22 Yes 5-6 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 5.3 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL RESULTS RECEIVER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONA EXISTING (2005) NOISE LEVEL TNM *MONITORED LEVEL FUTURE (2030) NOISE LEVEL: MODELED Laeglh (dBA) SHADING= IMPACTC MDT APPROACH LEVEL (A) OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE (S) OR BOTH (B) INCREASE OVER EXISTING LEVEL MITIGATION CONSIDERED 9 52 SFR 45* 58 - 13 No 53 Church 45* 60 S 15 No 53A MFR 45* 65 B 20 Yes 54 SFR 45* 62 S 17 No 55 SFR 48 58 - 10 No 56 SFR 45* 56 - 11 No 57 School 42* 73 B 31 No 57A School 59* 67 A 8 No 58 SFR 59 66 A 7 No 58A SFR 59* 67 A 8 No 59 SFR 56 52 - -4 No 60 SFR 59 50 - -9 No 61 SFR 57 55 - -2 No 62 Future C 52 59 - 7 No 63 MFR 64/59 64 - 0 No 64 MFR 62 70 A 8 No 65 MFR 63 64 - 1 No 66 SFR 54 57 - 3 No 67 MFR 48 64 S 16 No A The receiver number corresponds to the receiver location displayed in Figure 1. The number 34 was intentionally not used. B Laeglh is the one -hour A -weighted energy equivalent sound level Lae(h) C The shading indicates that the noise levels will exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (67 dBA) and/or the criteria stated in the MDT Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual (66 dBA). SFR = Single -Family Residential MFR = Multi -Family Residential P = Open Space or Park C = Commercial 5-7 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 6.0 MITIGATION 6.1 MITIGATION OPTIONS MDT Policy states that noise impacts on sensitive noise receivers (residences, schools, public open spaces, etc.) require consideration of noise mitigation. Mitigation considerations include shifting the horizontal alignment, depressing the roadway, acquiring real property, managing traffic, and constructing noise barriers. The applicability of these options are as follows: • Shifting the horizontal alignment of the roadway from impacted sites. This option involves increasing the distance between the roadway (source) and the affected land use or activity (receiver), thereby reducing the noise levels for the receiver. As mentioned previously, the northern section of the bypass has been shifted from its original alignment. This mitigation option has been applied where practicable to meet the project design requirements. • Depressing the roadway. This option places the mainline of the highway below the level of the surrounding terrain to minimize noise impacts. The cost of roadway excavation, additional roadway drainage, and operational changes must be considered. This option was considered in a few areas and results are presented in Section 6.2. • Managing traffic (detouring trucks, reducing speed, etc.). Truck and/or speed restrictions may be evaluated as a means to mitigate noise in some extreme cases. Such restrictions are not recommended when in conflict with the intended use of the roadway or when creating unreasonable delay or hardship to the motoring public. Applying these restrictions would be contrary to the project purposes of reducing congestion on existing US 93 and improving safety. Therefore, this option is not being evaluated further. • Constructing noise barriers between traffic and impacted receivers. The most widely used roadway noise mitigation technique involves the construction of noise barriers. Barriers can consist of walls, berms, or a combination of both. Noise barriers are considered when feasible and reasonable conditions are met. Current FHWA noise barrier design procedures result in barrier heights that often do not intercept noise emitted from the vertical exhaust pipe (exhaust stack) of 6-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass trucks. For design purposes, the noise barrier shall intercept the line of sight from the exhaust stack of a truck to the receiver. The truck stack height is assumed to be 11.5 feet above the pavement. As shown in Table 5.3, impacted receivers were considered for mitigation, the evaluation of mitigation options and three general areas that were evaluated for noise barriers are discussed below. 6.2 NOISE MITIGATION BARRIERS CONSIDERED Potential noise mitigation barriers were considered for each of the residential model receiver locations that are predicted to exceed the MDT criteria. For each of the impacted receivers, mitigation measures were evaluated while considering reasonable and feasible mitigation. For a definition of reasonable and feasible, refer to the Noise Criteria Section. The threshold of noise reduction, which determines a "benefited" residence, is 6 dBA. Some of these barriers considered reduce the noise level greater than 5 dBA and others less than 5 dBA. MDT policy indicates that mitigation barriers for commercial properties and isolated residential receivers generally will not be considered reasonable to provide noise abatement. Therefore barriers were not considered for any businesses or isolated residential receivers. Based on the results of the TNM Model results: • Receivers 1 to 3, 13, 14, 27, 29 to 35, 53, and 54 are isolated receivers where the cost of the providing noise abatement would exceed the allowable limit and not be reasonable. • Receiver 18 is an open space area within MDT right-of-way and therefore was not considered for mitigation. 6-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass • Receivers 57, 57A, 58 and 58A experience more traffic noise impacts from the West Reserve Connection rather than the bypass. Due to access along West Reserve Drive, a 6 dBA insertion loss would not be achievable with barriers and therefore noise mitigation would not be feasible. • Receiver 64 receives traffic noise from the existing US 93 and is surrounded by commercial land use. Due to access requirements for surrounding land use, a 6 dBA insertion loss could not be achieved with barriers and therefore noise mitigation would not be feasible. • Receivers 6 to 10, 39 to 45, 47 to 52, and 53A were examined for mitigation of noise impacts using noise barriers and/or depressing the roadway grade of the bypass. The results are presented in Table 6.1. Barriers are intended to mitigate impacts to representative receivers, which include first- and second -row residences. Noise barriers cannot completely eliminate noise. Noise barriers along a highway are only effective for homes within 300 feet of the highway. Beyond that, noise barriers are less effective, but the natural decrease in noise with distance usually reduces noise levels. The exact noise barrier heights and locations will be finalized during the design process. Decisions on exact barrier locations will need to consider local streets, right-of-way limits, utilities and maintenance vehicle access, and landowner input. For modeling purposes, heights of barriers proposed along the US 93 mainline and ramps were measured from the roadway outer edge of pavement elevation on cut and fill sections. Heights of barriers proposed at the MDT right- of-way line were measured from ground elevation. The locations of potential mitigation barriers are shown on Figures 2 and 3 Northern and Southern Proposed Mitigation Areas, and the mitigation conclusions are summarized in Table 6.1. Checklists for each of the impacted areas for Reasonable and Feasible Considerations are in Appendix B. 6-3 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Studv for Kalispell Bvpas. Figure 2 — Southeastern Proposed Mitigation Area 64 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Studv for Kalispell Bvpas. Figure 3 — Northwestern and Northeastern Proposed Mitigation Areas 6-5 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Studv for Kalispell BvDass TABLE 6.1: LAND USE CATEGORY B MITIGATION EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR NOISE BARRIERS 2023 BARRIER DIMENSIONS BARRIER TOTAL UNITS 2023 MITIGATED BARRIER COST APPROXIMATE TOTAL BARRIER SEGMENT RECEIVER BENEFITED UNMITIGATED NOISE INSERTION CEI COMMENTS ID NUMBER ID (SECOND NOISE LEVEL LEVEL LOSS MAINLINE HEIGHT (@$25.00 Row) (d BA) (dBAJ (d BA) STATIONS AND (FEET) PLANNING LENGTH (FEET) COST) SOUTHEAST OPnoN (SE) NOISE BARRIER WITHOUT R6 ROADWAY 3 (2) GRADE DEPRESSED 64 56 8 28+50-04- 6-8 A —SE 29+18-68(225) R7 23 65 57 8 29+1 Noise 1 & 2 $1,424,947 $4,269 R8A 6 64 58 6 barrier 43+78-95 (4790) 47 10 R10 0 (11) 63 55 8 1 R6 3 (2) 64 56 8 28+95-76 6-10 29+87-18 (300) R7 23 65 56 9 29+95-76- 12 OPnON R8A 6 64 57 7 B—SE 43+33-44(4388) $1,417,444 $3,571 Noise 2 barrier R10 3 (11) 63 56 8 43+33-44- 6-10 SOUTHEAST (SE) NOISE BARRIER WITH ROADWAY GRADE DEPRESSED 44+02-05 (225) R6 3 2 64 54 10 OPnON R7 23 65 55 10 R8 (1) 55 49 6 C—SE 1 30+32-64- 10 $91,777 $863 R8A 6 64 56 8 Noise 41+50-97 (3668) barrier R9 8 63 54 9 [NE) NOISE R10 BARRIER WITHOUT 3 11 ROADWAY 63 DEPRESSEDNORTHEAST GRADE 56 7 1 R40 1 62 53 9 82+31.95- 6-10 83+00-91 (226) R41 5 4 67 53 14 OPnON R42 4 (4) 64 56 8 A -NE R43 6 61 53 8 Noise 83+00-91- $1,079,725 $1,559 R47 16 68 56 12 barrier 2 93+27-53 (3367) 12 R51 4 67 60 7 R52 1 58 52 6 R53A 25 9 65 57 8 1 R40 1 62 53 9 82+31-95 6-10 83+00-91 (226) R41 3(4) 67 60 14 OPnON R42 7 64 56 8 B-NE R43 6 61 53 8 83+00-91- 14 $1,237,820 $1,642 R47 15 68 55 Noise 2 13 93+04-70 (3292) barrier 9 R51 4 67 58 R52 1 58 52 6 R53A 31(9) 65 57 8 93+04-70- 12 NORTHEAST NOISE BARRIER WITH ROADWAY1 93+27.53 (75) (NE) R40 62 56 6 R41 5 67 57 10 OPnON 7 R42 6 64 57 C- NE 1 R43 2 61 54 7 82+54-89- 10 $899,770 $1,510 R47 15 68 56 Noise 12 93+27-53 (3518) barrier 10 R51 5 67 57 R52 1 58 51 7 R53A 32 65 58 7 NORTHWEST (NW) NOISE BARRIER R39 WITHOUT11 E DEPRESSED 69, 58 11 OPnON 7 82+31-95- R44 6 9 66 59 R45 7 (8) 66 55 A -NW 11 91+67-75 (3069) 12 R48 4 68 58 Noise 1 & 2 10 $974,725 $1,793 R49 4 66 60 barrier 6 R50 8(2) 67 53 14 91+67-75- 10 91+7025 (8) R39 11 69 56 13 OPnON 82+31-95- 12 R44 6 9 66 56 10 R45 7(8) 66 57 9 B-NW 1 88+02-51 (571) Noise $933,446 $3,057 R48 4 68 57 11 88+02-51- barrier 2 R49 4 66 58 8 91+22-05 14 R50 8 (2) 67 53 14 NORTHWEST [NW) NOISE BARRIER R44 WITH ROADWAY 6 4100momb� 66 59 7 82+54-89- 10 R45 7 66 55 11 1 88+7122 (2022) Wrapping wall to north R48 3 68 57 11 OPnON near R50 did not 2 R49 4 66 56 10 88+71-22 12 C-NW $700952 $1710 reduce the insertion Noise 90+08 -02 (448) , , loss any greater than barrier extending the wall to 3 R50 8 (2) 67 58 9 90+76-02- 10 the north- 90+08-02 (2022) CEI = Generally for land use Category B and primarily for residences, a reasonable cost of noise abatement can be considered by calculating a Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) which takes into consideration the insertion loss the barrier will provide and the number of benefited receivers. 6-6 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass A planning level cost of $25.00 per square foot was used to calculate the cost of a noise barrier. Actual square footage costs for barrier construction may be different during final engineering design. The total barrier cost does not include utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, material fill or excavation. If pertinent parameters change substantially during the final project design, the preliminary noise barriers design may be changed or eliminated. A final decision on the construction of the noise abatement will be made during the final project design with landowner input. 6.2.1 SOUTHEAST NOISE BARRIER Noise modeling predicted that Receivers 6 through 10 would be impacted by the future build alternative. Three options were evaluated for a noise barrier for 5 receivers at 3 subdivisions. Ashley Park (R6 & R7), South Meadows (R8), and Stratford Meadows (R8A, R9 & R10) (see Figure 2). For Options A and B without the roadway grade depressed the location is northeast of the bypass, between Airport Road and Sunnyside Drive, beginning near Station 28+50 and continuing northeast along the right-of- way to Station 43+78. For barrier Option C the location would begin at Station 30+33 and continue northeast along the right-of-way to Station 41+51. The length of the barrier for Option C is shorter than Options A & B and yield a CEI that is lower, but does not include costs associated with excavation of the roadway grade. The barrier height for all options ranges from 10 tol2 feet; would reduce noise levels at, or just below, the MDT impact level of substantial increase by 6 to 14 dBA, and would benefit both first row and second row residences adjacent to the bypass right-of-way. 6-7 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 6.2.2 NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST NOISE BARRIERS Noise modeling predicted that Receivers 39 through 45, 47 through 52 and 53A would be impacted by the future build alternative (see Figure 3). Noise barriers are proposed on both sides of the bypass between Three Mile Drive and Ashley View Drive where the average right-of-way width is 262 feet. Research has shown that the reduction of the effectiveness of the noise barriers located parallel to each other is linked to the ratio of the separation (width) between the barriers and the average height of the barriers (FHWA 1998). Should the decision to construct barriers be made in this location further analysis should be conducted during final design to determine if the barriers effectiveness is reduced. An initial model run for this location, with the roadway grade depressed, indicates that a maximum 14-foot high noise barrier with the roadway depressed yields the same insertion loss as predicted by TNM on the east side of the bypass, but reduces the overall insertion as predicted by TNM loss by 1 dBA on the west side of the bypass. Northeast Noise Barrier Three options were evaluated for a noise barrier for 7 receivers at 3 subdivisions: Northview Heights and nearby privately owned parcels (R40 through 43), Phase 3 Empire Estates (R47, 50, 51) and Northland (R53A). For Options A & B without the roadway grade depressed the location is east of the bypass, between Three Mile Drive and to north of Ashley View Drive, beginning near Station 82+31 and continuing north along the right-of-way to Station 93+27 (see Figure 3). For barrier Option C the location begins at Station 82+54 and continues north along the right-of-way to Station 93+27. The length of the barrier for Option C is shorter than Options A & B and yields a Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) similar to Option .: FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass A, however, excavation costs of the roadway grade were not included. During final design the relationship of the location of the bike path and the Ashley View Drive crossing to the noise barrier would need to be considered. Lightweight barriers on structure (i.e. bridges) may be necessary to achieve an effective continuous noise barrier in the vicinity of Receivers 50 and 53A. The barrier height for all options ranges from 10 tol4 feet, would reduce noise levels at, or just below, the MDT impact level of substantial increase by 6 to 14 dBA and below the NAC. The barrier would benefit both first row and second row residences adjacent to the bypass right-of-way. Northwest Noise Barrier Three options were evaluated for a noise barrier, to mitigate noise impacts to 6 receivers at the Phase 1 and 2 of Empire Estates (R39, 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50) subdivision. For Options A & B without the roadway grade depressed the location is west of the bypass, between Three Mile Drive and Ashley View Drive, beginning near Station 82+31 and continuing north along the right-of-way to Stations 91+70 and 91+22. Option C begins at Station 82+54 and continues north along the right-of-way to Station 90+08 (see Figure 3). The CEI for all three options is similar, however, excavation costs of the roadway grade are not included. The barrier height for all options ranges from 10 tol4 feet; would reduce noise levels at, or just below, the MDT impact level of substantial increase by 6 to 14 dBA and below the NAC and would benefit both first row and second row residences adjacent to the bypass right-of-way. 6.3 COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS The results of this noise analysis should be considered for development or redevelopment of land parcels along the bypass so that the information can be used in guiding local land use decisions. Land directly adjacent to the bypass .• FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass has noise levels that are generally not suitable for residential development without the use of noise -reducing construction methods. Setback distances and noise contours and additional information for local officials may be found in Appendix D. MDT encourages noise compatible land use planning. 6.3.1 NOISE COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING Highway traffic noise should be reduced through a program of shared responsibility. Noise barriers are often not the answer to highway traffic noise impacts. Barriers can be aesthetically unpleasing, are physically restrictive and are often not practical for Montana's rural landscape. The costs incurred by the state transportation agencies for barriers take money away from other highway needs. Land developers should be required, or at least encouraged, to implement "noise compatible" development in their projects. One example is to provide green belts, open space or parkland between residential developments and busy or high-speed roadways. Also, landscaped berms, often incorporating bike or pedestrian pathways, can reduce noise impacts while providing an aesthetically pleasing entrance or boundary to residential developments. Subdivisions can be designed such that service alleys and/or bike paths are located between residents and highways, providing slightly more distance between residences and roadways. In higher density housing, garages, carports, or storage sheds should back up to highways. Developers can choose more sound -absorbent materials in construction (refer to the FHWA publication: The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use); use brick exterior highway -facing surfaces and design homes with non -sensitive rooms facing the road) and design the 6-10 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass highway -side of residential structures without windows. Solid masonry fences (with no decorative gaps or holes) reduce noise much more effectively than wood stockade or slat fences. Rows of trees or bushes can provide a visual buffer between homes and highways, even though they will not provide noise abatement. Commercial buildings, parking lots, garages and other non -noise sensitive land uses planned between residents and highways are excellent ways to buffer noise in mixed use neighborhoods. Noise barriers are not practical in most areas of Montana where low -density population and spectacular scenery are the primary reason many people choose to live in Montana. Noise compatible land use planning has positive effects on a development's aesthetics, property value, and the quality of life for residents, and preserves Montana's visual resources. 6-11 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS The traffic noise evaluation and modeling effort described above indicated the noise levels for the future bypass Build Alternative (design year 2030) will increase relative to existing noise levels. The areas of higher density single-family housing that would experience these increases in noise levels are concentrated mostly on the northeast side of the bypass between Airport Road and Sunnyside Drive and on the east and west side of the bypass between Three Mile Drive and Ashley View Drive. These areas, as well as all other impacted noise receivers, were evaluated for noise mitigation (abatement) . Proposed mitigation areas have been evaluated in three general areas. The proposed barrier locations and height ranges are preliminary only and may change, as the roadway design is finalized. These potential barriers are shown in Figures 2 and 3 and Table 6.1, and were discussed in the Noise Mitigation Barriers Considered section of this study. Even with noise barriers, residents within 500- 1,000 feet of a highway will likely be able to hear noise generated by traffic. Noise barriers are designed to reduce noise levels to a tolerable level. Noise barriers cannot completely eliminate noise. Noise barriers along a highway are only effective for homes within about 300 feet of the highway. Beyond that, noise barriers are less effective, but the natural decrease in noise with distance usually reduces noise levels. Substantial changes in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the bypass as roadway final design progresses will require additional noise impact analyses and mitigation evaluation. The decision to provide noise abatement for a highway project is made by a multidisciplinary team of MDT and local representatives with input from affected landowners. Their decision will be based on careful consideration of the Reasonable and Feasible criteria. 7-1 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass A Noise Abatement Recommendation Checklist will be filled out in consideration of noise abatement. The checklist is found in Appendix B. The final noise abatement decision is a product of public input as well as the preliminary noise abatement decision. 7-2 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 8.0 REFERENCES Carter & Burgess, Inc., Kalispell Bypass Feasablity Study. October 1993 City of Kalispell. 2006. Zoning Maps and City Ordinances. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/MT/Kalispell/index.htm Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. Traffic Noise Model Version 2.1 User's Guide (Addendum February 2003). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). January 1998. Traffic Noise Model User's Guide. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). May 1996. Measurement of Highway - Related Noise. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). June 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). June 1992. Reasonableness and Feasibility of Abatement. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). December 1991. 23 CFR Part 772. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. 23 CFR 771.135, Section 4(f) Final Rule. Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA). 1982a. Stamina 2.0: Users Manual. Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA). 1982b. Reasonableness and Feasibility of Abatement. 8-1 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). June 2001. Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual. Stelling Engineers, Inc., Traffic Forecasting Report & Amendment. November 2004, March 2005, June 2005. Stelling Engineers, Inc., Preliminary Geometric Report. November 2004. Stelling Engineers, Inc., Conceptual Plans. May 2005 and September 2005. U.S. Government. 1991 Federal Register, 23 CFR, Part 772. 8-2 APPENDIX A: LAND USE MAPS Figure 17, MAP EXISTING LAk.(D USE INVENTORY - JANUARY, 2003 C�Ly of Kalispell/ Planning Jursdictlon vv € om>erV Or Rmrve Dr �-s cn cn rr r mi Foys take. Rd f L . S. Resourcit- and Arudysiaa Sectian KnIf.spe11 Ctrwxth Poiscy, February 2003 79A Figure k 7a- LEGFM EXISTING LAN D USE INVENTORY s JANUARY, 2:033 The i nbmaUon t.� lv:id Lw. for ec-& Ys-Q L-td Leas imralc f� pv�mtsd by Wz-,I dudngtDe> �b r &W2 F-id fans �+ of 20 e--d € � sorm � suede 0 tfra rat E'••3 h Uty Lk itt& ! t s vurvey E i mt done frx Uis- e�t i C$ Pata i Ut' -y ServW Ate. TrWAY Pto-flT lg Ofte, 17 ❑nd �' Eon [te 911, tisJ:�ll, e5kM1 () 76f-1 &50 ax AM C�ty € f Kalispell - 01 Urv-ft u diary, Janus 2T, 2033 Proper NtamatD U.S. F;igi- Asay 93 Bypass m'mercia; (Ralmil and wholesale goods arid'nfices) (incluad ba-nand firanc'W i nstitE;4ioM) 1igh4 lndlus Haf (Equiprnerrt sales, lumber mils, rail mad, atc.) Profmional Medical Facili ties (Hospkals, Ph i -lam and Vet-enr;aty OffioM stc,) Professional Officez/Offices (AttomeA Aowuntarft, Real Esstate, cft.) Mufti--Farn4 r Residential (Apace-6 1ts, ro-J p hamesT 3+ residz ,'Jai unilz) Dttr?ieX (2 residential 'tutu) Single Family F,esidentf_ai Mobile Hone Park - (4 or mom mobiia horns unl~ s) Horne Business Gcvernmerd FaciKy / QuasWublic (C,qy, CaurAy, StErle afA Federal Govemment Offices oW aclldes) LAiliiy Gommun� -y wells, lit sWons, water and sewer faciliil , etc.) Schools, Churche, Museums and ather oommuni1yfaciIffles Public - Pz rim and Openspa (homsawners pafsq common area, c onserva1on easements. etc.) m tee Vacarz L---id amM*VL3 smv Fagum 16v-. LEGEND CITY OF KAUSPELL/PLANNING JURSNCT0N February 20, 2003 LEGEND B-1 Neighboftod Buffer District - 46 acrm B-2 Careers Businew - 295 acm B-2 PUD Gomra' Dwirass WWh I"reed UnrL DEWfopmafft Ovefty - 69 acres B-3 Community Rualr -148 acres 134 Cewxa1 Rusin 122 awe M hduabie1/ComnuxcW - 44 eorw B-5 ai *fth Manned Unlit Development C fty- 112 ace PUD RdW: Commwdal Offios - 16 eom 1-1 Light IndustrU - 98 acree I-1-1 Fth Care- 99 aam IIUD Professbnal Medical - 30 amw R-I Suburban RaW iai - 43 axas R-2 SiwIs Ft?Frnlly Reakkx7Bi - 63 acm PUD Single Farr i y Resder ' - 14 F-OM Urban Single Family Resklential - 739 aorw R-4 Two FamVy R4;sidentW - 704 acm RA PUD Two Farrilly RsWsra? orb Planned Lind. Davefopmnt Overlay - 160 aow RA-1 Lcw DenMyy R"derrlisr Apartment - 446 awas RA-1 PLED Low [meaty RWJwSWI Ida.' TnW wM Planned I nirt Davekq>mant delay -12 ap RA-2 High Wmhy Residential AparhmrtZ - 21 acws PUD MLiFti-farWly Reslderflial -6 acm R Resid ia' W.4rr erWa - 45 acres Resaume and Analysis Seddon Kalispell Growth Policy, February 2003 Pat d=°e 2//2 i/D3 y f 6Aj�"Vw.fl P1&d%v Fig,m I.{. MAP CITY OF KALISPELL/PLANNING JURISDICTION ZONING DESIGNATIONS rubmury 4U, /_VV0 I ;1 1 y�V a' 3 N W Miles Resource and Analysis Section iCaHspet Growth Policy, February !2003 TTA Plat date; 2J2WO3 Figure I8a- LEGEND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE POTENTIAL UTILITY SERVICE AREA Kalispell Growth Policy LEGEND POTENTIAL UTILITY SERVICE AREA - APPROX 21,145 ACRES COMMERCIAL - 1,693 acres NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - 57 acres INDUSTRIAL - 1,200 acres URBAN MIXED USE - 947 ACRES PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE - 1,1 92 acres URBAN RESIDENTIAL - 5,493 acres SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL -- 8,199 acres HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 522 acres [� SUBURBAN AGRICULTURAL - 172 acres ® NEIGHBORHOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY- 3,672 acres (overlaps other use designMvns) FLOODWAY - 679 acres EUL-1 100 YEAR FLCCD PLAI N - 3,399 acres (avedaps other use designations) F,esorzrce and Analysis Section Kalizapolt Growiii Policy, February 2003 Pkt Dmbw 4r4w FEBRUARY 18, 2003 84A 1 KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY FUTURE LAND USE MAP r r f_ f . . \sll 101 � a 9 n�• 1. l may+' p II L Y� f �cs��^-xr� �a�rwrrrr i�.tewrar LEGS! p� ❑ Futi—e land use ResienaVans bacated on ti•ds +w+p are only app�c r rtren a property !s pti-ap�osed Far annexation and do nvt imre any erreet on fonds exrder^ rouety Jurts�'c36n ofih regard to zmEig, demgfy, sul + l or Dtlm [and aw de-dsform CITY OF KALISPELL / PLAN PdI4dG 3URISDICTION BOUNDARY PCnIWTIAf_ tI3`tLTiY SERVICE AREA {nr�ticXS, SEY1r3Ci"S, rnttl 1T3�, nfs� Pd oh (rervkrs, orrtrxs, lvn nzd remit to h "n-'nd €e rbu3 hhortxad) ® Neighborhood Pion Area (rrtdrk e, rr� , d on, .ter rg} Fi3$hrtl y CCmmunity Entrance Urban Hlxed use Area Major Arterial Street readwibW, ftemd eorrursercFm! & ks¢u�ta[} Wn', Cyes� ty Re�ic3ermal minor' Arterial Street (rgwti famvywW "iTed off) Collector Stet (typkzigy a t* ao dw--srrW }sir gross acre) __-- __ ProposM Altemate U S Highway 93 Ur. . Resideausal ,,,*IX, tz"-14 F- y moat-r frtuyl 5 or HighvsnW d[rr= in dam Ircms {rimy 3 to i2 d�vregs Per gmz acre) are not yet cmnatnsded, �'.7gu.+rifdrt fiHSits@rrtaef [csq-e fsrnar re3+da¢t}s[} {rwc m e s d-Oftg5 per era- sae) 100 Year Floodplain cam, r . pu>W Wm*Flyway © Su3surban Agrieukural Lend PMTr Lend Slope 30% or greater FEBRUARY IS, 2003 l two �gg 2 E h $ p a fl 1 ijq[ i {i 1 1ie13 @s d Z •-f�J�'�J 'Q� d I � � __z==siiii=it e R� rem S•�� � eta%y. .� w� mow• i..w.� k �= Av Y� k�i�yui� fII�• � � L'I � xrr■� �� YeRle� a PRO Aj— AR v a.r.. � r�r�yk� if" 1<'a .Jj7 Yi.ti •�FkY � R V 9b co 'd 658[I5L906 H {d LU rnOHItII Id IMS11W HH Wit �Ila, 90R-M-�r`_---------.•-- �s.u+rr . .� w r� u.;ru•r•,rarnsur- -Ynz•.. • r iJJ �I 8£ �00+£8 MN Z3N £ L�MNL£ +� deW jeld AJEUlwllaad v w -- 6£MN sajelsEl aaldw3 aas deW jeld ` slu6laH M;9lny}JON aaS 00+98 L£M MN MN MN g00 98 �- MN Z 00+L8 MN _ 00+89 ' ti49N L MN 3N '. 00+68 4 80N MN OZ3Ni� �-�-� Z MN ZZ3 00+06 N VZ3N MN MN 0: 1 MN deW jeld fueu�wllaad 0* saleIs3 aaldw3 aaS - LZ3N� �— -- deW Ie}d tieulwllajd i 6Z3N 00+Z6 j E5 I s pUeluljoN aaS 0£3N OO+E6 f Q i ZE3N t I 00+9 u0,1096 U191PON u� q1/7-r ll 20 7— .�� z- 2-- V�j 490 2- bo fE_ 1L� w hl 3 N�2 3 1 12 �6P 9Y: SANDS SU LYEYLHC :NC. tN6Eitl.Ma`lrura>•rai rui. :m>, vRsrsarrncJ ron; r.na: nlnrme aAiC NNL R>al! P- 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EMPIRE ESTATES IN THE W W OF THE SW IN OF SECTION t• T.ZBlY•. FZ22W, FLATHEAD COUNTY. MOHTANA. AI. .. CRAPRIC MAIR f I .SuB Q►u ► S � am �:�..�-� R.�,� � k�: :�.•_ l S&-r7zCE spr.ts _ '•...e`.».u'°: .•x w. c.�rtia...w d,U - ru E �{N-fi•S-F $fFHt� L � I ,� e""...:': �'..���W..�� =ne..� � � ,q a r rs' mr � r. � I ,ra wti/wear-r.:n i�.+lit_iiW �we1LJa �flors.wdK Jr N n r. :. TO TA[ AREA: 57.094 ACRES S.7L4E5: dE USJAC. �• , y I F -" PA/rr(ZMA: i_MCA C LANOSCAPEARFA' f."gAC. a� w�Al Aoao: a rser AC.. _ wry �� • ^Ny��� � L � :� � .. � � .. E`9{ _, erL `-;FdY4•U ylr•YrY-...-� r 1 ?. ,� :r '� P'P RX IH i '� ■x h1. [ems=; �. A lr `--T■■R?r Oi-P- B'R'1i`f �• •, �" • . ■ wm.a.�• ;. - _iJ E—ter ' �-'-41 7 � t. "E +f�� wy L. - - - • __ ern art • �'`•,��r . is� � • ��-��q`y _ I�r -- - _ _ _ E , J oY E r •' ., Y R L •i� sr nrR of "f I'.fL Y—I`11y� �-- ��� S .9'J37o• w rHRBi }r7LE aRIY �l� 7� S] I T • h — 1 E _ JJ c,f . - 1 Dec in Q5 ❑G:O3p im aw .r r w •r M w w p. G oxla>1 2foRlEy lr WC2=L UC ezm MAn L UMMET pt 6i_ i7II1%id-'L bIC� A!� Hi�RR1S. INC � NORTHVIEWHEIGHTS aw NO= W=Uij SVom F1m �. » N �.YV LOCATED M THE SOUTHEAU QUARTER e iratlrr� {xoe] 752�5"L4a rla=. 1r ZD= TOWNSW 28 mc*n K RANGE 22 !E, a Inc i z _ l-L 1H SOu1/4 CaraQL MEW" 1 �' S eNT FULM OR 51-T L'IIR.E r..s1.E qz 1/i6 oAV&ER— Fot*a 3/r FaMIR F0.vm 1 1/2, ppf -U, OWFJj[ *%I" oft AS MUtM o Fouum s/a- M�R W/C wracm -as75 LS C9) lnxnr esEwa+r STHI�a ADOMSS 671 l.EH- xA0u6 0`LTr• &o o a m UE+- C Cl 71•" 15.0a es L5' 19.66" RmV CZ 1 •Gd W-SIY,S 65 '52T cs r rs rc�1" r ssr+r 1r C.a CS 57" 37_tN' 15- 53.Ou' ,QSIB't - S77 4� 'tl2Y C6 56. - 53-45, H7500'S6le E1 B- Hta Oil 37. E C9 65" T 1 H "WW LYQ 25 r 96'S0" aµ Had'Sr 1 C11 4 Slvv u9]'SY _ss Ww clz Si 5T5ri a7-lY C A O1' r Cl •41Y 7a63 77 t-n PHA 4 6E9& 191,ALa LOTS' 5.855 &C. ROADS 3.302 A.C. TG= 9.157 AC- d, M l E n a o" w L A N o- u N 1 T N o_ 2 12 17 16 z s Prt.y P ,k .rrrr.r ar.rs SIfV 6C� �/fdVt1 L� ,; ! t �, 14 �r S ��nq .y6° Y l� 4 � r � ti� iq O Fn — ' e r^ �[ f_ �T PG Q ` .� 19 V ZOO LOOP �y� a � o to- =aV as r • m c°i V r[W ate t •CCNTCRUNE THREE r.1rLE. DRNE .� IN chr f ',g -:Falnifya RcsWcntial umt57 CIO y [ \ i ' ��•.,��'� ,;gam fiQ ! � � ��� r �� = � sn. 17 \� ••�•• Fly r /177w�- Oj 11 U i 1 a `O Zs APPENDIX B: REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE CHECKLIST - CD APPENDIX C: NOISE MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES — Cob APPENDIX D: INFORMATION FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS Montana' Department af.iranspor anon 1im lynch.-Direclor 2701 Prospect Avenue Brian Schweitzer, Governor PO Box 20 1001 ✓icier' MI 5962U IOQI Kalispell B $s� Pe YP MDT project # NH -MT 5,3(59)109F CN 2038 INFORMATION for LOCAL OFFICIALS on HIGHWAY TRAFFIC N015iE Federal Noise Regulations, 23 CFR Part 772 Information regarding potential noise impacts on currently undeveloped lands along the proposed Kalispell Bypass is being forwarded on to you in accordance with the Federal Noise Regulations (23CFR772.15). For your reference, a copy of the noise regulation is being transmitted with this letter. This letter relays the best estimation of future noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the Kalispell Bypass: provides information that may be useful to local communities, planners and developers to protect future land development from becoming incompatible with the Bypass's projected noise levels; and discusses eligibility for Federal -aid Type 11 noise projects (retrofit noise abatement). The Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) The Federal Highway'Adrninistration (FHWA), has established absolute noise level guidelines for several categories of land use activities; which include the following Lq noise levels: Category A Laq = 57 dBA Lands on which "serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need-_." category B L,.R = 67 dBA Picnic areas, recreation areas, parks, residences, motels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals_ Category C L.,,q = 72 dBA Properties/activities which are not included in Category A or B (e_g., most commercial and industrial activities). Traffic noise impacts occur when noise levels approach or exceed the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria listed in the above table. In the Montana Department of Transportation's Noise Policy and manual, dated June 2001, we further define the terms "approach'° as one decibel below the Federal NAC, and 'exceed" as 13 decibels above existing noise levels. In our analysis of noise impacts along the Proposed bypass, most of the noise impacts occur as substantial increases in noise — those areas where noise levels are expected to rise more than 13 decibels over existing levels. In Accordance with 23 CFR 772.15, projected traffic noise levels for the Kalispell Bypass project are shown in the table at the end of this letter. Also refer to the maps for location information and noise contours. Noise -Compatible Land Use Planning & Noise Mitigated Development Land developers should be required, or at the minimum, encouraged, to implement "noise -compatible" development in their projects. One example is to provide greenbelts, open space ar parkland between residential developments and busy or high-speed roadways. Also, landscaped berms, often incorporating bike or pedestrian paths, can reduce noise impacts while providing an aesthetically pleasing entrance or boundary to residential developments. Subdivisions can be designed such that service alleys andtor bike Paths are located between residents and highways, providing slightly more distance between residences and roadway. Page f of 2 An Equal Opportunity Employer In higher -density housing, garages, carports or storage sheds should back up to highways. Developers can choose more sound -absorbent materials in construction (refer to FHWA publication The Audible landscape: A Manual for Hiathway Noise and Land Use], use brick on exterior. highway -facing surfaces and design homes with non -sensitive morns facing the road — like laundry room, garage, kitchen, playroom, utility room); and design the highway -side of residential structures without windows. Solid masonry fences (with no decorative gaps or holes) reduce noise much more effectively than wood stockade or slat fences. Rows of trees or bushes can provide a visual buffer between homes and highways, although they will not reduce the noise level much, if at all. Commercial buildings. parking lots and garages and other non -noise sensitive land uses planned between residents and highways are excellent ways to buffer noise in mixed development neighborhoods. In addition to the above generalizations. the following are some spec noise abatement measures recommended for consideration by the local jurisdiction in the project area: • Requiring developers to implement suilable noise abatement measures in those cases where adequate setbacks or buffer zones are not maintained (e-g-, berms, sound walls, insulation, doubleltripie pane windows, etc.); • Requiring acceptable setbacks or buffer zones for new residential units or developments (i.e.; The Table above indicates 300 feet east of the Kalispell Bypass centerline would be an appropriate distance to construct residences adjacent to the Kalispell Bypass right-of-way in order not to approach or exceed FHWA noise abatement guidelines); • Maintaining appropriate zoning for non --sensitive land uses adjacent to the route; • Lowering or Maintaining (not raising) the current posted speed limits; • Include a statement on any development/building permit indicating that the developer will be responsible for either avoiding traffic noise impacts or providing any associated abatement. Type It Project Eligibility [23 CFR 772-13(b)] Type It Projects, are for projects strictly for noise abatement on an existing highway, developed to address noise impacts to residential areas that were either previously not addressed or unknown. All Type tl projects must have been approved by FHWA by November 28, 1995. MDT did not have a Type if program approved by that date and does not currently have a Type tl program. Noise abatement measures will not be approved at locations where such measures were previously determined to not be reasonable and feasible for a Type l project. Date of Public Knowledge Normally, the date of public knowledge is the approval date of the environmental determination (i.e., CE, FCNSI, ROD). For this project, the Record of Decision was signed by FHWA on 11/30/1994 and would normally be considered the date of public knowledge. However, because the Environmental Impact Statement for this project stated that noise abatement measures would be considered in final design, we have chosen the date of August 9, 2005 as the date of public knowledge. This is the date of our public meeting in Kalispell to present the changes to the alignment and potential noise impact locations. After this date FHWA and MDT are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement for new development adjacent to the highway project. Development along the proposed bypass which is platted after this date will not be considered for noise abatement - Questions about this letter, or requests for traffic noise or noise -compatible land use planning information and/or publications can be directed to Cora Helm, Montana Department of Transportation Environmental Services, 406-444-7659 (coheIm45Dmt.9ov), or to Joe Radonich in the same office, 406-444-9204 (iradonich _ mt.gov}. - Page 2 of 2 +MFORMATION for LOCAL OMC1ALS In Accordance with 23 CFR 772.15, projected traffic noise levels for the Kalispell Bypass project are shown in The table below- Please refer to maps for more information. Projected Noise Levels In dBA L.,,,Ih Along Proposed Kalispell Bypass West of Existing US 93 SOUTH SIDE NEAR STATION 6+01 West of Existing US 93 NORTH SIDE NEAR STATION 6+01 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centertine Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Genterline Noise Levels 200 64 200 67 250 62 250 65 300 61 300 63 350 59 350 62 400 58 400 fit 450 57 450 - - 59 West of Airport Road and south of Sunnyside Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 2-5+89 West of Airport Road and south of Sunnyside Drive WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 32+47 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels 200 65 200 66 250 63 250 bet 300 62 300 62 350 61 350 61 400 60 400 x 60 450 — 58 450 59 Between Sunnyside Road and Foys Lake Road FAST SIDE NEAR STATION 47+48 Between Sunnyside Road and Foys Lake Road WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 48+50 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels 200 64 200 64 250 63 250 62 300 62 300 61 350 B1 350 60 400 60 400 58 450 59 450 57 Between Foys Lake Road and US Hwy 2 EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 56+40 Between Foys Lake Road and US Hwy 2 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 56+89 Distance, to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels 200 65 200 65 250 64 250 63 300 62 300 52 350 61 350 60 400 60 400 59 450 59 450 58 Page 7 of 2 Between US Hwy 2 and Two Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 71+68 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Centerline 200 65 250 63 300 62 350 61 400 6[y 450 59 Between Two Mile Drive and Three Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 80-443 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Centerline 200 71 250 68 300 66 350 64. 400 62 450 61 Between Three Mile Drive and Four Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 83+8 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Centerline 200 65 250 63 300 62 350 61 4GO 60 450 59 Between Three Mile Dave and Four Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 89+90 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Centerline 200 65 250 63 300 62 350 60 400 59 450 58 Between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve Connection EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 102+56 Distance tO Kalispell Bypass I Noise Levels Between US Hwy 2 and Two Mile Drive WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 71+87 Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels Bypass Centerline 200 64 250 62-- 300 61 350 60 400 _ 59 450 5B Betwem Two Mlie Drive and Three Mile Drive WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 80+43 Distance to Kalispell No Levels t3 ss Centerline 200 61 250 60 300 54 450 1 56 Between Three Mile Drive and Four Mile Drive WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 84+14 Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels -Bypass. Centerline 200 1 65 :35u 61 400 60 450 59 Between Three Mile Drive and Four Mile Drive WEST SIDE NEAR STATION W41 Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels B22r>s Centerline 200 64 250 63 300 61 350 60 400 59 450 59 Between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve Connection WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 102+68 Distance to Kalispell I Noise Levels 250 - -- 64 250 63 300 62 300 62 350 61 350 62 400 59 400 59 45058 450 58 ig indicates fhat the Noise Levels will exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and/or the i in the MOT Noise PoGcv_ Pane 2 of 2 CITY OF Kalispell Zoning KALISPELL Bitterroot Heights No. 2 ® Subject Parcel Sgate P-1 Public R 2 Residential R 3 Residential R-3 Residential R 4 Residential RA-1 Residential Apartment 7nlY\YA •umD Dr R=" Residential Carner Vanderbilt D 1 R-2 I I Residential �iEkq Data Sources: Montana Cadastral, Flathead County GIs. City of Kalispell GIs, Austin Bachurski - 02/14/2023 5 R-3 — ��Oe?tW Residential ;C RA-1 'O Residential ' P-1 Public I ential N 0 130 260 520 780 Feet Basemap: Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.com Kari Barnhart From: Kirstin Robinson Sent: Wednesday, March t, 2023 7:38 AM To: PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart Subject: Fw: EXTERNAL File #KPP-23-WI From: Pattie Carl <pattiecarl3@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:14 PM To: Kirstin Robinson <krobinson@kalispell.com> Cc: Fordkv7l@gmail.com <Fordkv71@gmail.com> Subject: EXTERNAL File #KPP-23-02 To Whom it may concern, We received your certified notice of request for preliminary approval of plat for Bitterroot Heights No. 2. We do have some questions regarding this planned development and were unable to register for the video conference; the message was that this webinar has expired. We are not opposed to some development of this property, however there are some vaguely stated details we would like to be privy to prior to board approval and possibly have some comment and conversation regarding issues stated below. 1: The application does not specifically address what type of single family housing ie: attached/detached or other. 2. There is no map of the division of property lines for the lots. 3. There is nothing on the map that shows the entrance and exit roads or internal road map. 4. There is no designation for where the park will be or the size of the park. 5. Many neighbors are concerned with start and completion dates, construction noise, heavy equipment traffic and allowable work days, times and length of construction process. We would appreciate a response asap, as it appears this may be affecting us in the very near future. Sincerely, David J and Pattie A Carl 65 W Northview Loop Kalispell, MT. 59901 pattiecarl3@gmail.com Kari Barnhart From: Kirstin Robinson Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 7:39 AM To: PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart Subject: Fw: EXTERNAL Re: File #KPP-23-02 From: Kevin and Valerie Ford <fordkv7l@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:17 PM To: Pattie Carl <pattiecarl3@gmail.com> Cc: Kirstin Robinson <krobinson@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Re: File #KPP-23-02 Looks good to me. On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:14 PM Pattie Carl <pattiecarl3@xmail.com> wrote: To Whom it may concern, We received your certified notice of request for preliminary approval of plat for Bitterroot Heights No. 2. We do have some questions regarding this planned development and were unable to register for the video conference; the message was that this webinar has expired. We are not opposed to some development of this property, however there are some vaguely stated details we would like to be privy to prior to board approval and possibly have some comment and conversation regarding issues stated below. 1: The application does not specifically address what type of single family housing ie: attached/detached or other. 2. There is no map of the division of property lines for the lots. 3. There is nothing on the map that shows the entrance and exit roads or internal road map. 4. There is no designation for where the park will be or the size of the park. 5. Many neighbors are concerned with start and completion dates, construction noise, heavy equipment traffic and allowable work days, times and length of construction process. We would appreciate a response asap, as it appears this may be affecting us in the very near future. Sincerely, David J and Pattie A Carl 65 W Northview Loop Kalispell, MT. 59901 pattiecarl3@gmail.com From: Eric & Tricia Proctor To: Kirstin Robinson Subject: EXTERNAL Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:15:27 PM We are writing to provide comments regarding the approval request of the Bitterroot Heights No. 2 Subdivision. Our concern of the subdivision is in relation to the location of the neighborhood mailboxes on North Riding Road. It is our belief that residential vehicles parked along North Riding Road will cause a narrowing of North Riding Road and have a negative impact regarding pedestrian and vehicle safety around the mailboxes. Eric And Patricia Proctor 21 West Northview Loop Kalispell, MT From: Roger Harbin To: Kirstin Robinson Subject: EXTERNAL File #KPP-23-02 Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:13:07 AM I own a home at 57 W Northview Loop in Kalispell. It is occupied by my elderly sister. I note that a development application has been filed for Bitterroot Heights No. 2 just south of W Northview Loop. I have no objection to the development, but I note that N Riding Rd has an uneven surface, which will likely become worse during construction. I suggest that you require the developer to repave N Riding Rd, at least to the corner of Northview Ct., once construction is completed. Thank you. Harbin Investments LLC Roger Harbin 12248 243rd PL NE Redmond, WA 98053-5685 (206)660-2254 KPP--23 r b2. �2 lJ�c dm'J CC) ajV- 4�L wo / 6 q 0 (o Z6) ( 2 9 53 From: Linda Burnham To: Kirstin Robinson Subject: EXTERNAL File #KPP-23-02 Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:11:21 PM TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We own a single family residence that backs onto North Riding Road, directly across from the above referenced proposed project. Please consider the following comments in opposition to approval, as submitted, of the major subdivision, Bitterroot Heights No. 2, proposed off North Riding Road and West Northview Loop. To place 13 single family homes, a park and the required roads and other infrastructure will result in substandard lot size and is entirely over zealous for the small 4.2 acre lot. The traffic coming off Three Mile onto the relatively narrow, and already busy, North Riding Road is already dangerous for motorists attempting to turn left onto North Riding Road with Alternative Route on and off ramp traffic and no existing turn pocket to protect the motorists attempting that turn. In addition, the group of mailboxes servicing the housing to the east of the proposed subdivision is located very near the Three Mile Drive turn. Additional traffic associated with an additional 13 residences increases the danger for the many Kalispell residents who must retrieve their mail directly across from the proposed subdivision and so near the Three Mile intersection. While development of this parcel, obtained from the State of Montana Department of Transportation, is most likely inevitable, the subdivision must be scaled down to support fewer homes on larger lots and the developer be required to foot the engineering and costs associated with improvement of intersection of Three Mile Drive and North Riding Road to include, at a minimum, a turn pocket for the safety of all citizens. Kalispell does not need another housing jungle in this area. Linda N. Burnham Graen Crest, LLC Manager / Member ( 406 ) 890-7984