The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff Report/KNTC5 Preliminary PlatKALisPEii. Development Services Department 201 1st 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-22-04 — Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5 Preliminary Plat MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022 BACKGROUND: Stillwater Corporation has applied for preliminary plat approval for Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5, a major residential subdivision with 37 lots on approximately 10.6 acres in lots, roads, and common area. The property is zoned R-3 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") overlay. The proposed subdivision is part of a larger development project that includes 485.5 acres with four zoning designations: R-3 (single-family residential), R-4 (two-family residential), B-1 (neighborhood business), and B-2 (general business). The subdivision request encompasses a portion of the R-3/single-family component of the PUD. The property is located on the east side of Jefferson Boulevard and can be described as Tract 9-A of the Amended Plat of Block 3 of Kalispell North Town Center, Phase 2, located in the southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on April 12, 2022, to consider the request. Staff presented staff report KPP-22-04 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 the request be granted subject to 26 listed conditions. No comments were received at the public hearing, other than from the applicant. The public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KPP-22-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the 26 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 6069, a resolution conditionally approving the preliminary plat for Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5, described as Tract 9-A of the Amended Plat of Block 3 of Kalispell North Town Center, Phase 2, located in the southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 6069 April 12, 2022, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Staff Report Application Materials & Maps Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk water, sewer, storm drainage, streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. 5. 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. 6. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. 7. Any water rights associated with the property shall be transferred to the City of Kalispell prior to final plat. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. All easements and/or rights -of -way 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. 12. A Geotech report shall be submitted prior to final plat to be reviewed by the Kalispell Building and Public Works Departments which would establish to their satisfaction that both infrastructure and all building sites would be able to meet loading and other requirements. 13. The Traffic Impact Study shall be updated to include known modifications to final platted areas within Kalispell North Town Center, as well as background data from adjacent approved developments. The updated TIS shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and any recommendations shall be implemented. 14. All streets within the subdivision will be constructed to the appropriate city standards as detailed in the subdivision regulations and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction for local streets. 15. 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 and shall comply with the fire code. 16. The following statement shall appear on the final plat: "The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, providing or offering to provide telephone, telegraph, electric power, gas, cable television, water or sewer service to the public, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of their lines and other facilities, in, over, under, and across each area designated on this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever." Developer's Signature 17. Prior to filing the final plat, a letter from the US Postal Service shall be included stating the Service has reviewed and approved of the design and location of the mail delivery site. The mail delivery site shall be installed or bonded for prior to final plat. In addition, the mail delivery site and improvements shall also be included in the preliminary and final engineering plans to be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The mail delivery site shall not impact a sidewalk or proposed boulevard area. 18. A letter shall be obtained from the Kalispell 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. 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. 19. A parks plan shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. A minimum of 0.3 acres for this phase is required. The park shall meet the standards under Section 28.3.22 and the plan shall show that the parkland dedication requirement is met for this phase. The applicant will need to provide a detailed breakdown of existing parks facilities and valuations prior to final plat. If deficient, additional park amenities or a cash -in -lieu payment will be required. The amount of the payment will be established at the time of final plat, with an appraisal provided by the developer or by a similar method. 20. 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 taxes levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 21. 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. KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12, 2022 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning CALL Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Doug Kauffman (acting President), Rory Young, Joshua Borgardt, Ronalee Skees, George Giavasis and Kurt Vomfell. Chad Graham was absent. PJ Sorensen and Jarod Nygren represented the Kalispell Planning Department. Keith Haskins represented the Public Works Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Giavasis moved and Skees seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2022, 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. BOARD MEMBER RECUSED Young recused himself. KA-22-01— KOISTINEN File # KA-22-01 — A request from Ryan Koistinen for annexation and ANNEXATION initial zoning of RA-1 (Residential Apartment) for property located at 1801 and 1823 5t1i Avenue East. The proposal involves two properties that will be subject to a boundary line adjustment (Assessors Tracts 8D and 8KA). The applicant owns Tract 8D/1823 5t1i Avenue East, which is partially in the city. Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc. owns Tract 8KA, which is also partially in the city. The boundary line adjustment would take approximately 0.256 acres of land from Tract 8KA and add it to Tract 8D. This request would annex the entirety of the expanded Tract 8D into the city with an RA-1 zoning designation, with a total of ■ 0.43 acres to be annexed. The property to be annexed and zoned can be described as A tract of land situated, lying and being in northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M., M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the north 1/4 corner of said Section 20; Thence S00°06'49"W, a distance of 27.97 feet to the true Point of Beginning; Thence S00°06'49"W, a distance of 176.47 feet; Thence S76°43'12"W, a distance of 88.75 feet; Thence N13°23'48"W, a distance of 171.63 feet; Thence N76°42'06"E, a distance of 129.97 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.43 acres. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-22-01. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-22-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the entire property be city RA-1 (Residential Apartment) BOARD DISCUSSION None. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2022 Pagel PUBLIC HEARING Toby McIntosh — Jackola Engineering — 2250 Hwy 93 South — representative for applicant, offered to answer any questions the board may have. MOTION — KZC-22-01 Vomfell moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-22-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the entire property be city RA-1 (Residential Apartment). BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER RESEATED Young re -seated. KZC-22-02 — BLUE DUCK File #KZC-22-02 — A request from John Todd to change the current ZONE CHANGE zoning of properties located at 128 and 130 2nd Street East and certain adjoining properties from RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) to B-4 (Central Business). The combined properties (other owners include the City of Kalispell and Villa Normandy, LLC) contain approximately 0.44 acres of land and can be described as Lots 1, 2, and the northern 37.5 feet of Lot 3, Block 57 of Kalispell Original Township, according to the map or plat thereof in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KZC-22-02. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KZC-22-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the subject properties currently zoned RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) be rezoned to B-4 (Central Business). BOARD DISCUSSION Young inquired about any impacts this zone change may have on the city regarding the parking lot. Staff advised that parking is allowed in either zone so there would be no impact. PUBLIC HEARING None. MOTION Skees moved and Vomfell seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KZC-22- 02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the subject properties currently zoned RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) be rezoned to B-4 (Central Business). BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. KPP-22-03 & KCU-22-01 Files #KPP-22-03 and KCU-22-01 — A request from Housing Solutions, CREEKSIDE COMMONS Inc, for a conditional use permit for a multi -family residential Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 12 development and major preliminary plat approval for one additional lot within an existing subdivision. The new lot would contain approximately 1.01 acres. The development would include 31 senior housing units which are rent and income restricted, supported by tax credits administered through the Montana Board of Housing. The property is in a B-2 (General Business) zone at 1203 Highway 2 West (Gateway West Mall) with the project to be located in the northern portion of the property. The property can be described as Lot IA of Gateway Community Center, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, excepting therefrom Parcel A of Glenwood West, 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 PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Reports #KPP-22-03 & KCU-22-01. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-22-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-22-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Creekside Commons be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Borgardt asked about the access on the south end of the property and who would regulate that. Staff advised that since it is currently one of the main accesses into the parking lot currently it is being maintained so this would not impact that access. Rory inquired about the reduced amount of parking spaces that are called out seeing as this is a multi -family use. Staff advised that under the zoning ordinance since this is a senior housing complex there is only I parking space per 2 units required. If the complex ever were to change from senior housing to regular rentals, then more parking would be required. PUBLIC HEARING Alex Burkhalter — Housing Solutions — Missoula, MT — applicant for project, briefly explained the tax credits, land use attached to the tax credits and the 45-year deed restriction. MOTION — KCU-22-01 Vomfell moved and Skees seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-22- 02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board all agreed that this project is much needed and like to see it happening. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2022 Page13 ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION — KPP-22-03 Skees moved and Vomfell seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPP-22-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Creekside Commons be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER RECUSED Young recused himself. KPP-22-04 File #KPP-22-04 — A request from Stillwater Corporation for KNTC PHASE 5 preliminary plat approval for Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5, a major residential subdivision with 37 lots on approximately 10.6 acres in lots, roads, and common area. The property is zoned R-3 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development overlay. It is located on the east side of Jefferson Boulevard and can be described as Tract 9-A of the Amended Plat of Block 3 of Kalispell North Town Center, Phase 2, located in the southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. BOARD DISCUSSION None. PUBLIC HEARING None. MOTION Skees moved and Vomfell seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPP-22-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5 be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER RESEATED Young re -seated. OLD BUSINESS Nygren updated the board on recently approved projects. NEW BUSINESS Sorensen announced that this meeting would be Skees last meeting and Kauffman presented her with a certificate. He also updated the board on the May 10' Planning Board, including a potential zoning text amendment to be proposed by the City relating to the intent of the R-4 zone. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45pm. Chad Graham President Kari Barnhart Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 14 APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2022 Page 15 KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER PH 5 REQUEST FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION - STAFF REPORT #KPP-22-04 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT APRIL 6, 2022 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request from Stillwater Corporation for major preliminary plat approval of Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5 on a total of approximately 10.6 acres. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Board for April 12, 2022, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Stillwater Corporation has applied for preliminary plat approval for Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5, a major residential subdivision with 37 lots on approximately 10.6 acres in lots, roads, and common area. The property is zoned R-3 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") overlay. The proposed subdivision is part of a larger development project that includes 485.5 acres with four zoning designations: R-3 (single-family residential), R-4 (two-family residential), B-1 (neighborhood business), and B-2 (general business). The subdivision request encompasses a portion of the R-3/single-family component of the PUD. A: Applicant: Stillwater Corporation PO Box 7338 Kalispell, MT 59904 B: Location: The property is located on the east side of Jefferson Boulevard and can be described as Tract 9-A of the Amended Plat of Block 3 of Kalispell North Town Center, Phase 2, located in the southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. C: Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property itself is currently vacant. The zoning of the property is R-3 (Residential) with a PUD overlay. The R-3 district is "intended to provide lot areas for urban residential development. This district should have good thoroughfare access, and be in proximity to community and neighborhood facilities, i.e., schools, parks, shopping areas, etc. Development within this district must be served by all public utilities. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as suburban residential or urban residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map." NOUH Kalispell Zoning Lot 2C, Tract ID 2921 X19-XXX-2C ® -fir Residerrual - Residenoal AparnrrereeOfice - C al Business Residential Public R-2 R-31PUD RA_ IIIIi `�. �sw"Fia�v7,- Jinn I T COUTNY 1 � BUD RAMUD Date 112-2n22 T�� Kalispell De m nt Seeorvi e D SIX] Mt Cadastral data: M-.22 � 1 p q D. Size: The subject property is approximately 10.6 acres. E: Adjacent Zoning: North: City RA-2/PUD; County R-2.5 East: City R-3/PUD South: City R-3/PUD; City B-2/PUD West: City B-2/PUD F: Adjacent Land Uses: North: Single-family residential East: Vacant (residential) South: Vacant (commercial) West: Multi -family residential G: General Land Use Character: The area contains a mixture of different uses. It is in the northern part of Kalispell North Town Center, which is a 485-acre PUD with commercial and residential uses. This specific portion of the PUD transitions from a multi -family residential project that is under development to the west to single-family to the north (part of Eagle Valley Ranch) and projected single-family development on vacant land to the east. 2 H: Availability of Public Services and Extension of Services: The property is currently located within the City of Kalispell and all services are available to the property. Provision of services will entail an extension of existing utilities within the site by the developer. Sewer: City of Kalispell Water: City of Kalispell Refuse: City of Kalispell Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative Gas: NorthWestern Energy Telephone: CenturyTel Schools: School District 95 (Edgerton/Glacier High School) Fire: City of Kalispell Police: City of Kalispell 3 REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE MAJOR PRELIMINARY PLAT . n.�r I'IA70F KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER - PHASE 5 —� a r--- - �I �Le— I- I' I — -- — —� - A. Effects on Health and Safety: Fire: The property is considered to be at low risk of fire. Buildings within the subdivision would be constructed in accordance with the International Fire Code and have access which meets city standards. The area to be built upon does not have steep slopes or woody fuels. Hydrants will be placed in compliance with the requirements of the fire code and approved by the Fire Chief. Flooding: The subject property is located entirely outside of the 100-year floodplain per the Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel number 30029C 1415J, effective date November 4, 2015). Access: The primary access to the subdivision will be provided from Jefferson Boulevard, which is an existing road connecting to Rose Crossing. Rose Crossing is classified as a minor arterial connecting Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage. The intersection with the highway is scheduled to have a traffic light installed in the near future as part of a separate development. Jefferson Boulevard extends to the north as well, and will eventually connect to the highway through Eagle Valley Ranch. The 4 proposed subdivision layout would include future connections to the property to the east and south. B. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: There are no water features which would provide aquatic or riparian habitat. There also does not appear to be any significant wildlife impacts. The Resources and Analysis Section of the Kalispell Growth Policy includes information from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks relating to deer, elk and moose habitat. As with the majority of the Kalispell area outside of the core downtown, the maps show a whitetail deer density of 5 to 30 per square mile, but no significant elk or moose habitat. C. Effects on the Natural Environment: Topography, Geology and Soils: The overall site is generally flat. There are not any topographic features or slopes that would impact this development. A specific Geotech report was not prepared by the developer. While there have been several Geotech studies in the immediate vicinity that have not indicated any substantial issues, the developer plans to bring up to four feet of fill onto the property. Between any existing conditions and the fill, both infrastructure and building construction could potentially be impacted. As such, a condition of approval for the preliminary plat should require a Geotech report to be submitted prior to final plat to be reviewed by the Kalispell Building and Public Works Departments which would establish to their satisfaction that both infrastructure and all building sites would be able to meet loading and other requirements. Surface and Groundwater: This subdivision will be served by public water and sewer thereby minimizing any potential impacts to the groundwater. No surface water creates concerns regarding this development. There is no floodplain in the area or on the property. Drainage: Roadways will be paved and curb/gutter will channel runoff to designed low points, where storm water will be collected and routed to storm water ponds. Storm water runoff from the site shall be managed and constructed per the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction and storm water management program. Phases 1-3 of Kalispell North Town Center included certain infrastructure related to Phase 5. However, the regional detention pond that was constructed did not account for the post -development condition of Phase 5. It is anticipated that the flow control and water quality treatment will be addressed adjacent to Phase 5 with the potential to integrate the system into a larger drainage network with future phases. Final design will be approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to development. A homeowner's association will be created for the maintenance of the open space and storm water management. At the time of final plat, provisions for maintenance of common facilities are to be provided under the subdivision regulations. A waiver of right to protest the creation of a Special Improvement District ("SID") for stormwater maintenance shall be included on the final plat as part of those maintenance provisions. 5 The SID would only be implemented in the event that stormwater facilities are not maintained in a manner consistent with the approved drainage plan. D. Effects on Local Services: Water: Water service to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell from an existing water main to the west of the property within Jefferson Boulevard that the developer will extend to and throughout the subdivision. The water system will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department and Kalispell Fire Department as part of the development for compliance with the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction and the Fire Code. There is adequate capacity within the city's water system to accommodate this development. Per the subdivision regulations, any water rights associated with the property shall be transferred to the City of Kalispell prior to final plat. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Kalispell with an existing sanitary sewer main located in Jefferson Boulevard that will extended by the developer to and throughout the subdivision. The sewer system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision for compliance with the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. There is adequate capacity within the city's sewer system to accommodate this development. Access and Roads: The property fronts Jefferson Boulevard for the full width of the subdivision. While the roadway itself was recently constructed, the frontage will need to be improved with a landscape boulevard, street trees, street lights, and sidewalk. Within the subdivision, all streets will be constructed to a local street standard detailed in the subdivision regulations and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Improvements would include, but would not necessarily be limited to, curb and gutter, landscape boulevard, street lights, and sidewalks. A Traffic Impact Study ("TIS") was prepared by CTA Architects & Engineers for the overall development in 2012 and updated in 2016. That TIS addressed the impacts relating to traffic and included a number of recommendations for mitigation of the development's impact. This phase generally fits within that overall study, but the TIS should be updated to include known modifications to final platted areas within Kalispell North Town Center, as well as background data from adjacent approved developments. The updated TIS would be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and any recommendations should be implemented. Additionally, Section 28.3.25 of the subdivision regulations requires a waiver of the right to protest a Special Improvement District ("SID") for roadway improvements in adjacent areas. On the face of the final plat, there shall be a note stating: "The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which will specifically benefit this subdivision." 6 Schools: The property is within the boundaries of School District 95 (Edgerton/Glacier High School). On average, it would be anticipated that there would be about 18 students at full build -out. Section 76-3-608(1) of the Montana Code Annotated states that the governing body may not deny approval of a proposed subdivision based solely on the subdivision's impacts on educational services. Police: Police services will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. The department can adequately provide service to this subdivision. Fire Protection: Fire protection services will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department. The department can adequately provide service to this development. Additionally, the road network to the subdivision provides adequate access for fire protection. As part of the review of the engineering plans for the subdivision, fire protection, including access, fire flow and hydrant location, will be reviewed. Fire station 62 is located approximately 1.8 miles away providing good response time. Parks and Recreation: Under the subdivision regulations, 0.03 acres of parkland is required for each dwelling unit, which would equate to 1.11 acres. The preliminary plat does not include any park areas, although there are existing homeowners' parks which could support the project. The applicant will need to provide a detailed breakdown of existing parks facilities and valuations prior to final plat. If deficient, additional park amenities or a cash -in -lieu payment will be required. The amount of the payment will be established at the time of final plat, typically with an appraisal provided by the developer or something similar. As a note, the PUD plan calls for open space and a trail to the east of the phase boundary (including the treeline) that will need to be developed and maintained as development progresses. Additionally, as a homeowners' park with common maintenance responsibilities, provisions for maintenance shall be submitted and reviewed at the time of final plat pursuant to the subdivision regulations. As part of those provisions, a waiver of protest of the creation of a parks maintenance district shall be included on the face of the final plat, which would only be created if necessary if those maintenance obligations are not fulfilled. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by the City of Kalispell. There is sufficient capacity within the landfill to accommodate the additional solid waste generated from this subdivision. Medical Services: Ambulance service is available from the fire department and ALERT helicopter service. Kalispell Regional Medical Center is approximately 3.0 miles from the site. E. Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: At one point in time, the property was used for agricultural purposes, but is now vacant land that is part of a larger overall development. The NRCS classification from 2007 7 F: shows that a portion of the subject property may include prime farmland if irrigated. Current policies in the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035, Chapter 5, Land Use: Natural Environment, state the following: Policy Encourage urban growth only on agriculture lands entirely within the city's annexation policy boundary. By providing a growth area boundary, the city can encourage the extension of city water and sewer service, as well as other city services, which enables more growth to come into the City of Kalispell with higher density. By allowing higher density development within the city's growth policy area, it could reasonably be expected that more farmland could be conserved because the availability of residential and commercial lots within the Kalispell Growth Policy boundary, limiting sprawl/leapfrog development. In this particular case, the land is already located within the city limits and partially developed with adjacent infrastructure. Relation to the Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map AL Kalispell Growth Policy NORTH Lot 2C, Tract ID 2921 X19-xXX-2C - Ud— M ued the Suburban Re idermal - City Rirpor -G- Suburban Residential LIN m Government Urban Mixed Use F— .��ur i Dare 3-"-2022 Mt Cad—val data: 35-2022 . „ Kalispell Development Services KALISPELL designates the subject property as Urban Mixed Use, which anticipates a wide range of residential and commercial development. The City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035, Chapter 4A on Housing, encourages a variety of residential development that provides housing for all sectors and income levels within the community. The proposed subdivision can be found to be in compliance with the Kalispell Growth Policy and its goals and policies. 8 G. Compliance with Zoning: The request complies with the R-3 and Kalispell North Town Center PUD zoning regulations, including minimum lot size and width requirements. H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This request complies with provisions of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. RECONIlVIENDATION Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-22-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Kalispell North Town Center Phase 5 be approved subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council. 2. All applicable conditions within Ordinance 1630 (Kalispell North Town Center PUD) shall apply. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. 4. 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 shall include, but not be limited to, water, sewer, storm drainage, streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. 5. 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. 6. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. 7. Any water rights associated with the property shall be transferred to the City of Kalispell prior to final plat. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. All easements and/or rights -of -way 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. 12. A Geotech report shall be submitted prior to final plat to be reviewed by the Kalispell Building and Public Works Departments which would establish to their satisfaction that both infrastructure and all building sites would be able to meet loading and other requirements. 13. The Traffic Impact Study shall be updated to include known modifications to final platted areas within Kalispell North Town Center, as well as background data from adjacent approved developments. The updated TIS shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and any recommendations shall be implemented. 14. All streets within the subdivision will be constructed to the appropriate city standards as detailed in the subdivision regulations and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction for local streets. 15. 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 and shall comply with the fire code. 16. The following statement shall appear on the final plat: "The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, providing or 10 offering to provide telephone, telegraph, electric power, gas, cable television, water or sewer service to the public, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of their lines and other facilities, in, over, under, and across each area designated on this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever." Developer's Signature 17. Prior to filing the final plat, a letter from the US Postal Service shall be included stating the Service has reviewed and approved of the design and location of the mail delivery site. The mail delivery site shall be installed or bonded for prior to final plat. In addition, the mail delivery site and improvements shall also be included in the preliminary and final engineering plans to be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The mail delivery site shall not impact a sidewalk or proposed boulevard area. 18. A letter shall be obtained from the Kalispell 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. 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. 19. A parks plan shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. A minimum of 0.3 acres for this phase is required. The park shall meet the standards under Section 28.3.22 and the plan shall show that the parkland dedication requirement is met for this phase. The applicant will need to provide a detailed breakdown of existing parks facilities and valuations prior to final plat. If deficient, additional park amenities or a cash -in -lieu payment will be required. The amount of the payment will be established at the time of final plat, with an appraisal provided by the developer or by a similar method. 20. 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 taxes levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 21. 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 taxes levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 22. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a Special Improvement District for roadway improvements in adjacent areas stating "The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which will specifically benefit this subdivision." 11 23. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of all common areas and facilities. 24. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 25. All utilities shall be placed underground and in locations that are approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department in accordance with the Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. 26. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix immediately after development. 12 STILLWATER CORPORATION KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER PHASE 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION Kalispell, Montana Prepared By: 'os � Survei"rIgl a• Jackola Engineering & Architecture PO Box 1134 Kalispell, MT 59903 Project No. 210405 Contact: Toby McIntosh, PE 406-755-3208 Date 3/1/2022 KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plat Application PROJECT SUMMARY Kalispell North Town Center (KNTC) is a Planned Unit Development located on the east side of US Highway 93, on the north and south sides of Rose Crossing. Tract 9-A is a remainder portion of Tract 9 of Certificate of Survey No. 4491 containing 10.64 acres. The tract is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard on the west, Eagle Valley Ranch subdivision on the north, and undeveloped tracts to the east and south. The project proposes a subdivision of 37 residential lots ranging in size from 8,160 sf to 10,347 sf. The project is located within the R-3 zone of the KNTC Planned Unit Development. The project includes the development of two new east -west and one north -south local City Streets that would allow for connection to future phases to the south and east. Public water and sewer utilities will be extended from Jefferson Boulevard within the ROW. The previously platted KNTC Phase 1, 2, and 3 accounted for Phase 5 water and sewer mains within Jefferson Boulevard. Upon review of the original design report, the regional detention pond that was constructed did not account for the post developed condition of Phase 5. It is anticipated that the flow control and water quality treatment will be addressed adjacent to Phase 5 with the potential to integrate the system into a larger drainage network with future phases. The storm facility is shown SE of the lots and will be located in an easement. The Environmental Assessment with the original PUD accounted for the overall development. For reference, the original Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the overall development and the Warrant Analysis completed for the Hwy 93/Rose Crossing intersection is enclosed. Additional traffic improvements are not anticipated as part of the Phase 5 development. KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plat Application TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Summary City of Kalispell Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application Preliminary Plat KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plans Title Sheet Existing Site Survey Preliminary Plat Site and Utility Plan Vicinity Maps Adjacent Property Information Vicinity Zoning Original KNTC Excerpts Sewer Maps Stormwater Maps Traffic Impact Study Traffic Warrant Analysis KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plat Application KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plat Application Development Services 4C11r-y;7�""""""��M1l Department 2011st Avenue East LISP ELL Kalispell, 59901 Phone (446) 758-794-7944 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Email: Plan ninUCcDkalispel1.corn Website: www.kalispell.com Project Name Kalispell North Town Center, Phase 5 Property Address NHN Jefferson Blvd. NAME OF APPLICANT Stillwater Corporation Applicant Phone Applicant Address PO Box 7338 city, state, Zip Kalispell, MT 59904 Applicant Email Address jell@Ihcmt.eom if not current owner, please attach a letter from the current owner authorizing the applicant to proceed with the application. OWNER OF RECORD same as applicant Owner Phone Owner Address City, State, Zip Owner Email Address CONSULTANT (ARCHITECTlENGINEER) Jackoia Engineering &Architecture, PC Phone 755.3208 Address 2250 Hwy 93 S city, state, Zip Kalispell, MT 59901 Email Address POINT OF CONTACT FOR REVIEW COMMENTS Toby McIntosh Phone 755.3208 Address 2250 Hwy 93 S Zip City, State, Kalispell, MT 59901 Email Address tmcintosh@jackola.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): Tract 9-A of Amended Plat of Block 3 of Kalispell North Town Center - Phase 2 located in the southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana RAE 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. CITY O KAILI[SPEILIL GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: Number of lots or rental spaces 37 Total Acreage in lots 7,64 ac Total Acreage In streets or roads 2.3 ac Total acreage in parks, open spaces and/or common spaces 0.46 ac Development Services Department 2011st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone(4061758-7940 Total Acreage in subdivision 10.4 ac Minimum size of lots or spaces 8,160 Sf Maximum size of lots or spaces 10,347 sf PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTSISPACES: Single Family 37 Townhouse Commercial/Industrial Multi -family APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION s DISTRICT: R-3/PU❑ ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS: $2,500,000 PROPOSED EROSIONISEDIMENT CONTROL: Commonly accept) ARE ANY SUBDIVISION VARIANCES REQUESTED? NO (YESINO) APPLICATION PROCESS (application must be received and accepted by the Kalispell Planning Department 35 days prior to the Planning Board hearing} A pre-appllcation meeting with the planning staff Is required, Mobile home/RV Park Other SWPPP BMP practices If yes please complete a separate subdivision variance application 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"x17" in size 5. Electronic copy of the application materials, including the preliminary plat, either copied onto a disk or emailed to planning@kalispell.com (Please 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 on 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-confgured proposed lots base fee + $40 per lot add additional lots or sublots base fee + $125 per lot I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this application be incorrect or untrue, I understand that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the Kalispell City staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plat O KNTC Phase 5 Preliminary Plans O:e a z Qod VNVINOW 'll3dSllVA w W C C ooa a N NOIIVMOdMO3 M31VMIIIIS o w W H V Hd - M31N33 NMO1 HIMON 113dSlIVN m ch a o � m � 3v I� O s�gm �n =eew W r^W 17 11 a s WZ Z I� Gsoo o � � o x¢o= W ° 1-4 � � � xxx0000�oxo= . . ...... . ... s -6 �r ��Q� � �a mmmm s�� o0000 ��wwwwwwwwa � o s s � a s � � � Q <�ee m�aa� .,�s'd� o�oo 000 w�wwwwww wwwww d e0000�$oA®soa .oe.®�©�e.®©®o• VNVINOW-1 '-13dSl-lVA w z z z zi NOIIVMOdMO3 M31VMIIIIS W o 0. 63s V Hd 2131N33 NMOI HIMON 113dSlIVN LU w o z ---------- sz ------------ ----------- ---------- J, ---------- -------- ow I III ----------- < -------------- z 1- 1 IIN LU U) LU z U) VNVlNOW'-1-13dSl-lVA zi NOIIVMOdMO3 M31VMIIIIS V Hd 2131N33 NMOI HIMON 113dSlIVN z ---------- ----------------------- ------------ --------------- 7 t`7 -------- 41 41 ------------ -IN I z -- --------- H VNVINOW '-1-13dSl-lVA C) CN NOIIVMOdMO3 M31VMIIIIS V Hd 2131N33 NMOI HIMON 113dSlIVN ---------- X --------------------- ---------------------- 1� ------------------ ----------------- f7l TI I— T T7 i—'\\— r7-i - - - - - - - - - - - - III - ------------- ---------- UJ "z- z § LU - Vicinity Maps VNVINOW 'll3dSllV)l'NOISIAI49f1S DiN) NOliVdOddOJd31VAA11liS d31N3D NMOl HidON 113dSllV>i Yo g 4 AII I III I mt a ffim OAIO NOS83333f w w r O � a w U > m w� > way O w (D"� w a O w a U a U = rw a O 0 z O J U w Z a � �0 2 m ar Y O z £6 AVMHJIH 0 Z n m 0 > 0 w U ¢ � C) m = J F- t O J ^ Q 0 C7 F- z �P h� 6mp Sle V640�- 01NMP"04'V L\l6llm"09\"IVOL01NNSObOLat 000 0\emIIVSLZOZ\s-IIA4uell0\:Z VNVINOA 'll3dSllV)I'NOISIAI49f1S DiN)l NOliVdOddOD d31VAA11liS ti 3SVHd - d31N3D NMOl HidON 113dSllV>i 01 0 r-I Lli ^• 1 us 4A18 Noanjilf b Nx Nx x ¢ x x� Nx z Nx Nx Nx i as o 3 - - - az az az az o,� G u u u u u a u VNVINOW 'll3dSllV)I'NOISIAicionS DiN) o P, ll3d d31N3D NMOl HidON IlV>i Yo g o0 1 U Q z O a Zti v p cL N d Q Z U_ Q D a Ln N m Q D fV CO Z Q co 2 U Z Q = U Z ul Q J Z J } cWLLJ J W G J Q � W Q Q 4 6mp SI `J-b'640�- Z1NMP00041b Ikl5 '1MIIG 9\111V 0 L Z1NN Z CTA Sewer Maps N31N30 NMOl HIMON 113dSIIVN _ - S1N3WH000 N0110f1 :USN00 - 1 3SVHdFA _- - mwaatom VNVINOW`ll3dSllb rr^^ vl 0o p. a S1NEmnoo4 Noiio liSNOO %006 m s3lavaN1109 V3aV 3OInaas 3OVdSN3d0 b 3SVHd o pit iAF/4/OV lV0 098) �OOHOS (AVa/OV/-lVJOOZ`l)-1VIOb3WWOO (AVO/OV/lV0 SL£`6) (ovm43 Z'9) -MiN301S31H iAV4/OW lV0 LOSE) AWAVd-u�nvq � I ON3931 0 I i III £3SVHd dlll i Y b 314'II' Hd 4 I 4� 11 = A \ �- b 3SVHd III i � Illi I i � i I I / \ £# V 3HV 331AV3S L 3SVHd S 3SVHd Z 3SVHd r i b 3SVHd II � �+ 1 I III 93SVHd III Z# V311V 331AH3S I Ili III i 0l9 93SVHd 3 VHd fj IIII Z 3SVHd 4 III Z 3SVHd 'i 'i li Z �IOOl9 II i I 6 3SVHd I I I 63SVHd m 83SV LNOOl9 I = X m a �� 63SVHd _- _ - — -- roe 66 S b43S Z/6N - 'I II III M31N30 NMOl HIMON -1-13dSIIV'N S1Ngvin000 NOIlomUSNOO - 1 3SVHd _mN w a � VNVINOW III IdSPl soap. U)�%� oom N S1N3WnOOCI Noiionb1SNOO %006 m 0 oos os o �77 b 3SVHd i _ 1 J SS .,8I,0NIISIX3 Ol lO3NNOO X � 3OONMOIlONnr • � I NIVw3MJOd II � N3M3S ANVIINVS .86 IE3SVHd J I L G# H1 IM3S AHV11NVS .0l b3M3S AbVANVS ..8 ' UN3'�3l 9 1 # I b3SVHd `II � d l L 3SVHd y �# Z3SVHd - S3SVH'� l i i' b3SVHd II _III III I III N / - I II Y 9II3SHHd Iil 7 II 'i Ili I L3 Ol9 O#�, 93SVHd I Z 3SVHd H I I i it L# Z3SVHd II I Z NOOlB Ili Z# _ I l 3SVHd I Ili 01103NNOO 30ViS 7HSLJ311HMM2ininj NOIIVIS 1311 II 32if11f13SVHd d 6 3SVHd 23 V 6 NOO-19 l3SVHd CTA Stormwater Maps MMN30 NMOl HiMON 113dSIIVN - S1N3vyn000 NOuom:USNOO - 1 3SVHd - _ VNVINOW YI3dSI-1 H o rz r S1NiAnOOa Noiio :JiSNOO %00l Q` 0 —# ZdZ wq U LL Q y0r a 0. 0 0 Qy y U C W P 2 O C Z F�rw O OLLoy O0V0¢ Z O W ci W LLaog > J 0ii0 0 Q OLL�t- W 53LLz J p 30 Um�N0 LU N J m�a a O 0ryzy K zrm� a w0 $ mar M31N30 NMOl HIMON 113dSIIVN Y NN X N N p O S1N3WnOOCINOIlmJISNOO-13SVHd REA Z VNVINOW'll3dSllVN - mwF y4 a oo 75 p. a� c/) a Q S1NDvinO04 NOuomJ1SNOO %56- NOiionl ilSNOO 2JOJ lON ---------------------- 'ON 39VIS NSIA31INM I II I a •� p a � I _ � S f W. 3 � _ �1 .■L �.a �•'zjk ■ ter• cc 1 � ti u r.■ •ter IF Z S •I 1 W I I —ram' t X N 06 Lu ■ � 1 L ~,�tir�'ti.Jf4 J .v' ; . 'n■ L J� r■.-. I �� _07 vA3111$9: NOSN3d,,d3i' } tl < o } aII 1 , I Oa CI • - - - W W 10 a •• I� I N - U r I � [RIC ¢O r am r 1 £6 AMN r rl • a ail r L- 1 ■ .�<_ II M31N30 NMO1 HiMON 113dSllVN _ - S1N3An3OG NOLLOM:USNOO - 13SVHd FA VNViNOW'll3dSIlM M C =o _ S1N3WnOO(l N011mJiSNOO %001 ——� — — W i�llll 4 �\\nPr ^p m�Wm i } NQt�=— _ ___ o `__� gip__\' —iIK�. N I R m O O m fi F 1i} m W O ---------. 0 M ■ r2 C1 \Ili �_\�� — _ _ to � NI m Ow�N Z a m mm L \-aAlS NOSH3inr r«`z?= g W„soe 14m 3cim Hall-- 3uq w�N1W z� �pu z, zoe z yw zoo _ uuzz - w iw "Uw iw zz waw ay zz ay 3_ 3_ MMN30 NMOl HiMON 113dSIIVN p o S1N3Wf1000 NOIlOfttilSN00 - 13SVHd VNVINOW YI3dSI-1 H - -�o0 o a w w m °y Aw0 zum y a M Z m aa0�z 1 0 y W J � �N a m ■ y m W O / 0 U w ° f •■y za z % N m n 0 z o — \\ \ \ \I 1 w a i w ,o 1 = 0J a W m �uwo>z m° w 0 oW y 1W O > z z U° F m m a -- z � u m F a a n w z a .-, m m H V W 0 N G w Tz y u y a y 0 W 0 J j F�mn n�V m J O R W I � l 1 1 1 W (n O w S1NiAn000 NOlionl iSNOO %00l O8 39tl1S HSI 311NM y e \�I pr r lil , _ Ill Intl L�F, 'F U?vI �\\ 0I ill Ji i li Ira 'OAlB NOSN3dd3P I, 3WQ2=e aoo ow o WyWj LLI LLI \ % I (O.i er Z £6 AMN _ 3.i 3m� B: nN—z 3da 3 �'i°v 3 '°ea o o= ioe w�i:aU>_��u z!�v'� zn° nu w nu ;� =ow °U=oai u�3 =oy 3y aw ° — aw 3 MMN30 NMO1 HiMON ]]]dS|]¥)i aemmemuo /2O�\ A ( � SlNsmnooc New n No 500� \ B Sec PHASE 2 LOCAL ROW COLLECTOR ROW D.8 ARTERIAL ROW COMMERCIAL/HIGH DENSITY LOT COMMERCIAL - LOT 5, BLOCK 2 FUTURE - COMMERCIAL i FUTURE - LOCAL ROW FUTURE -ARTERIAL ROW % IMPERVIOUS AREA(sf) CN (ARC III) XCN S Q Volume (cf) HIGH DENSITY LOT 80°! 607226.4 94.8 57565062.7 0.55 0.16 8210.59 COMMERCIAL LOTS (EXCEPT LOT 5, BLOCK 2) 80°! 1436608.8 94.8 136190514.2 0.55 0.16 19425.06 COMMERCIAL - LOT 5, BLOCK 2 901/. 436035.6 96.9 42251849.6 0,32 0,25 9138.24 LOCAL STREET ROW 70% 164656.8 92.7 15263685.4 0.79 0.10 1424.47 COLLECTOR STREET ROW 801% 97138.8 94.8 9208758.2 0,55 0,16 1313.46 ARTERIAL STREET ROW 65% 229125.6 91.1 20873342.2 0,98 0,07 1382.43 FUTURE - COMMERCIAL LOTS 80°! 2247206.9 94.8 213035214.1 0.55 0.16 30385.54 FUTURE - LOCAL STREET ROW 70% 68334.0 92.7 6334557.2 0,79 0,10 591.17 FUTURE - ARTERIAL STREET ROW 65% 252824.7 91.1 23032330.2 0,98 0,07 1525.42 TOTAL REQUIRED WQV= 73396.37 0 BOZEMAN,MT p 406.556.7100 f 406.585.3031 04.09.2017 TAG REVISION = KNTC 0 KALISPELL, MT WATER QUALITY VOLUME lf REF SHEET SHEET NAME KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER J CHECKED BY STR5 L:\LH C_KNTC\BIMCAD\Civil\Exhibits\Storm\LHAT_STR5_P RO P_WQ V_PHASE_I.dwg Original PUD Traffic Impact Study rTA PIONEERING ENVIRONMENTS December 2, 2016 Tom Jentz Planning & Building Director City of Kalipsell 201 1It Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Kalispell North Town Center Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Mr. Jentz This letter is to inform you that the TIS attached hereto was co -prepared and co-authored by Erik Garberg, PE and Patrick McGowen PhD, PE, PTOE. The document meets the general standards of practice and a care and used industry accepted methods of analysis and evaluation in its preparation. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, CTA AR ITECTS ENGINEERS Erik Oarberg', PE cc: CTA File - Patrick McGowen, PhD, PE, PTOE g:\Ihc_gtcmp\2 traffic impact study\revised tis\2016_12_01_preperation letter.docx http://www.ctagroup.com E-mail: info@ctagroup.com TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER HIGHWAY 93 KALISPELL, MT Prepared For: Stillwater Corporation PO Box 7338 Kalispell, MT 59904 Prepared By: CTA Architects Engineers 411 East Main, Suite 101 Bozeman, MT 406.922.7121 www.ctagroup.com CTA Project No. LHC_KNTC December 05, 2012 Erik Garberg, PE Traffic Impact Study I North Town Center Proiect No. LHC KNTC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY....................................................................................3 2.0 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................3 2.1 Off -site and Surrounding Development........................................................................................3 2.2 Description of On -site Development............................................................................................4 2.2.1 Location........................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.2 Land Use and Intensity.................................................................................................. 5 2.2.3 Site Plan and Access Geometrics.................................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Applicable Zoning Criteria............................................................................................. 6 2.2.5 Development Phasing and Land Use.............................................................................. 6 3.0 STUDY AREA CONDITIONS.............................................................................................7 3.1 Study Area.....................................................................................................................................7 3.1.1 Road Classification........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Existing Traffic and Turning Movement Counts............................................................................ 8 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC.....................................................................................................9 4.1 Trip Generation.............................................................................................................................9 4.2 Trip Distribution..........................................................................................................................11 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................15 5.1 Capacity and Level of Service......................................................................................................15 5.1.1 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................... 15 5.1.2 Base Condition 2021.................................................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Base Condition 2021 with Phase 1............................................................................... 17 5.1.4 Base Condition 2021 with Phase 1 and Phase 2............................................................ 17 5.2 Warrant Analysis.........................................................................................................................19 5.2.1 Phase 1........................................................................................................................ 19 6.0 FINDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS.................................................................................19 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION..................................................................21 FIGURES Figure 1 — Aerial View of Site Figure 2 — Current Site Zoning Figure 3 — MDT AADT Counts Figure 4 — Existing Turning Movements and Trip Counts Figure 5 - Conceptualization of Origin -Destination Traffic Pattern Figure 6 — Base Turning Movements and Trip Counts Figure 7 - Base Condition + Phase 1 Turning Movements Figure 8 - Base Condition + Phase 1 and 2 Turning Movements CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC TABLES Table 1 —Access Configuration Table 2 — Development Phasing and Land Use per ITE Code Table 3 — MDT AADT Counts Table 4 — Trip Generation Phase 1 Table 5 - Trip Generation Phase 2 Table 6 — Trip Generation Full Build -out Table 7 — Trip Distribution Table 8 — Existing Delay and LOS Table 9 — Base Delay and LOS Table 10 — Base + Phase 1 Delay and Level of Service Table 11 — Base + Phase 1 Delay and Level of Service Table 12 — Failing Intersection Legs APPENDICES Appendix A — Phasing Plan Appendix B — Land use Plan Appendix C — MDT Letter Appendix D — Preliminary Plat Appendix E — Trip Counts Appendix F — Base Trip, Trip Count, Trip Distribution, and Trip Assignment Values Appendix G — Level of Service Calculations • Existing • Base • Base + Phase 1 • Base + Phase 1 and 2 • Mitigation Appendix H —Warrants Summary CTA Architects Engineers ii Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY In 2007 a traffic report was provided for a larger development concept titled Glacier Town Center. Since that time the market has changed and the land use plan has been updated The new concept proposes 9 phases, a phasing plan is included in Appendix A. Per Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) requirements this Traffic Impact Study will review the first two phases. The first phase of the project will include: • 12 Commercial lots varying is size from 1.15 acres to 7 acres • 1 Multi -family lot, 17 acres in size At this time the project is only requesting entitlements for these Phase 1 improvements. The second phase will include (not included in this preliminary plat submittal): • 44 acres of commercial land • 12 acres of Elementary School The first phase of the project is to provide east -west access through the site from Whitefish Stage to Highway 93 across the northern boundary of the development via an extension of Rose Crossing. It will also provide a new access to Highway 93 at the approximate midpoint of the property. The second phase will include a third access point to Highway 93 at the southern boundary of the property and new access to Reserve Street along the southern boundary of the development. A detailed conceptual road network is included in Appendix B, Land Use Plan. In discussions with MDT they have indicated that they will: 1. Allow the mid access to Highway 93 to be a 3/4 approach. 2. Allow the north and south accesses to Highway 93 to be signalized when warrants are met. 3. Allow a full service access to Whitefish Stage at the extension of Roase Crossing. Appendix C contains MDT's initial review comments for the project. 2.0 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Off -site and Surrounding Development The proposed project area is bounded by: South: Stillwater River, Applied Materials, and Glacier Memorial Gardens North: Nation Gard Facility and Open Farmland East: Open Farmland West: US HWY 93 In general, the current area is rural to suburban in nature but is close to several large commercial centers at the north end of Kalispell and is served by City utilities. The project CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC will serve as a continuation of this commercial corridor and be connected to City water and sewer 2.2 Description of On -site Development 2.2.1 Location The project is located east of US Highway 93, west of Whitefish Stage Rd, and north of West Reserve Drive. The property is approximately bounded on the north by Nob Hill Loop. The project can be legally described as: LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land located in the south half of Section 19, and the north half of Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana; thence along the north line of said Section 30, S89041'25"E 69.82 feet to a point on the east boundary of U.S. Highway 93 right-of-way and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along the north line of said Section 30, S89041'25"E 1237.84 feet to the west sixteenth corner common to said Sections 19 and 30; thence along the sixteenth line, N00033'31 "W 1320.49 feet to the southwest sixteenth corner of said Section 19; thence along the sixteenth line, S89046'04"E 629.90 feet; thence S00000'11 "W 1312.88 feet; thence S44059'55"E 7.07 feet; thence EAST 275.88 feet to the beginning of a 1040.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence along said curve 223.72 feet through an angle of 12019'30"; thence S77040'30"E 144.74 feet to the beginning of a 1360.00 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve 621.28 feet through an angle of 26010'27"; thence N76009'04"E, 150.75 feet, to the beginning of a 1040.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence along said curve 251.33 feet through an angle of 13050,46"; thence N89059'50"E 1706.12 feet to a point on the east line of said Section 19; thence along said east line, S00037'31 "E 41.97 feet to the southeast corner of said Section 19; thence along the south line of said Section 19, said south line also being the north line of Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 15221, on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, N89040'28"W 688.05 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract 1; thence along the west line of said Tract 1, S00012'44"E 41.98 feet; thence S89059'50"W 1018.94 feet to the beginning of a 960.00 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve 231.99 feet through an angle of 13050'46"; thence S76009'04"W 150.75 feet to the beginning of a 1440.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence along said curve 657.83 feet through an angle of 26010'27"; thence N77040'30"W, 144.74 feet to the beginning of a 960.00 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve 206.51 feet through an angle of 12019'30"; thence WEST 265.89 feet; S45000'05" 7.07 feet; thence S00000'11 "W 1235.11 feet; thence WEST 1868.86 feet to a point on the east boundary of U.S. Highway 93 right-of-way; thence along said east boundary through the following five courses: 1) N00011'1YE, 164.00 feet; 2) N14013'23"E, 61.85 feet; 3) N00011'01"E, 940.05 feet; 4) North 13056'35" West 61.89 feet; 5) North 00010'44" East 100.60 feet to a point on the north line of said Section 30 and the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Tract contains 81.091 acres. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center � i ,,r i Project Boundary (Y) r._,._..- U) > - 2 i 2.2.2 Land Use and Intensity No.LHC KNTC Applied Materials Figure 1 - Aerial View of Site Currently the property is used for agricultural purposes. The proposed development will represent a significant increase in use and intensity. The project will continue the growth of commercial uses in the area including Hutton Ranch, automobile dealerships, schools, and a manufacturing facilities. The project will be accomplished over multiple phases as the market dictates. 2.2.3 Site Plan and Access Geometrics A copy of the preliminary plat is located in Appendix D showing lot configuration and access points. Table 1 below summarizes the proposed access points for Phases 1 and 2 per MDT review comments discussed in Section 1.0. Access Phase Traffic Control 93 North 1 Signlized' 93 Mid 1 3/4 Stop Controlled 93 South 2 Signlized' Whitefish Stage North 1 Full Stop Controlled Reserve South 2 Full Stop Controlled Note 1 When Warrents are met Note 2 Additional right-of-w ay required Table 1— Access Configuration CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC 2.2.4 Applicable Zoning Criteria In 2007 a planned unit development (PUD) was approved for an extensive mixed -use development including a regional shopping center and various residential product types. The project is officially zoned by the City of Kalispell as B-2/PUD or General, Central Business, Industrial Business (Figure2). Figure 2 - Current Zoning The project as proposed will required an administrative modification to the original PUD for Phase 1 due to the inclusion of the 300 units of Multi -family proposed on Lot 1. Phase 2 will required a more intense modification of the PUD to include the school, not originally anticipated, and to update the land use plan included in Appendix B. 2.2.5 Development Phasing and Land Use Table two below provides a summary of the land uses selected for this TIS and their corresponding ITE land use code and phase (through phase 2). At this time 9 total phases are identified with Phases 1 and 2 including parcel layout and detailed analysis in this TIS. Depending on the market phasing may be adjusted by the appropriate City process. The phasing plan is included in Appendix A and the Land Use Plan in Appendix B. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC LOT PHASE ITE CODE DISCRIPTION 1 1 220 Apartments 2 1 312 Business Hotel 3 1 850 Supermarket 4 1 826 Specialty Retail Center 5 1 881 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -through 6 1 715 Single Tenant Office Building 7 1 710 General Office Building 8 1 841 New Car Sales 9 1 912 Drive-in Bank 10 1 932 High -Turnover (Sit-down) Restaurant 11 1 710 General Office Building 12 1 934 Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive Thorugh Windo 13 1 934 Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive Thorugh Windo Elementary School 2 520 Elementary School lCommerciall 2 820 IShopping Center Table 2 - Development Phasing and Land Use per ITE Code 3.0 STUDY AREA CONDITIONS 3.1 Study Area The project area is as described in Figure 1, Section 2.2.1. This study will review the new access identified in Table 1 in Section 2.2.3 as well as the impacts at the signalized intersection of Whitefish Stage and Reserve. The project does not review the impacts at Highway 93 and Reserve. This intersection has already been built to full capacity and there is limited mitigation that could be proposed. 3.1.1 Road Classification The primary roads that will accommodate traffic to and from the proposed development are US Highway 93 and Whitefish stage road. Additionally, West Reserve Drive will also be directly impacted by the proposed development. The following are the current conditions of these existing roadways: US Highway 93 is a north -south major arterial roadway that has two through lanes in each direction. At its intersection with West Reserve drive, US 93 have exclusive left -turn lanes and an exclusive northbound right -turn lane. The speed limit in this area is 55 MPH. Whitefish Stage Road is a minor arterial north -south roadway that has a through lane in each direction. The speed limit is 50 MPH north of West Reserve Drive and 45mph south of West Reserve Drive. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNT, West Reserve Drive is an east -west minor arterial that provides one through lane in each direction. At its intersection with Whitefish Stage road, an exclusive left turn lane is provided. At the intersection with US Highway 93, dual westbound left turn lanes and an exclusive east bound left and right turn lane are available. The speed limit on West Reserve Drive is 50mph east of US 93 and 55 MPH west of US 93. 3.2 Existing Traffic and Turning Movement Counts Average annual daily traffic (AADT) estimates from MDT are shown in Figure 3. The AADT is based on short term counts (two days to one week in duration) that are adjusted by seasonal and day -of -week factors. The seasonal and day of week factors are found from nearby permanent count stations and interpolated from all of the two-day counts. The "E" indicates that a short term count was not taken that year, but estimated from the prior year based on growth of other nearby counts. All this is important to note that traffic is variable and although these are based on actual count data, they are estimates. These AADT indicate an average annual growth rate on these roads of 2.6 percent. Compared to the land use growth projections in the 2006 Kalispell Transportation Plan this is slightly higher than the moderate growth scenario (1.59 percent population growth, 1.88 percent employment growth) but less than the high growth scenario (2.23 percent population growth, 4.01 percent employment growth). The 2.6 percent growth rate will be applied to turning movement counts taken in recent years to bring the count up to an estimated 2016 number and to forecast out to 2021. N n E 2012 1S670 2013 16970 2014 16220 '4 2015 16550 2012 18430 2012 3170 2013 18710 (E) 2013 3300 (E) 2014 19000 2014 3460 2015 20650 2015 3609 f 2012 17200 2013 17460 (E) ^�^ 2014 13550 2015 18429 Figure 3 - MDT AADT Counts 0 Table 3 below summarizes these MDT AADT counts in the area from 2011-2015: CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTI AADT COUNT SITE COUNT LOCATION 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 15-76-018 US 93. 116+0.018. N of West Reserve St 16320 M 15670M 16970A 16220 A 16550 A 15-7B-085 US 93, 115+0.773, S of Resery Dr 24700(M) 272720(M) 27680(Est) 21360(A) 20590(A) 15-76-033 ROUTE 548, 004+0.408, E of US 93 15920 M 18430 M 18710 Est 19000 A 20650 A 15-7B-078 ROUTE 292, 000+0.022, N of Reserve St 3580(Est) 3170 M 3300Est 3460 A 3609 A 15-76-064 WHrfEFISH STAGE, 002+0.484, S of W Reserve 6040(Est) 6020(M) 5920(A) 6720{A9 7960(A) (A) (Est) (M) Actual Count Estimated Count Manual Count = Actual Count Table 3 - MDT AADT Counts Figure 4 below summarizes the compilation of manual counts taken at Highway 93 as well as Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing on 7/17/2014 and camera counts conducted by MDT on 8/8-9/2016. As discussed above to normalize the two values a growth factor of 2.6 percent was applied to the 2014 data. Count summaries our included in Appendix E. Appendix F contains larger copies of the trip count, trip distribution, and trip assignment figures. If------------------ 1- UN L£G- 481 (854)y 4-753(813) - _ • 1� -7 Figure 4 — Existing Turning Movements and Trip Counts (normalized for 2016) 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC 4.1 Trip Generation CTA Architects Engineers 9 Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC The ITE land uses selected for this project are summarized in Table 2, Section 2.2.5. The selected uses come from conversations with the developer and a review of tenants in surrounding commercial developments. As actual site plans have not been prepared a general development efficiency of .25 or 25 percent was selected. What this means is raw land was converted to building square footage at a 1:4 ratio, for every acre of total parcel area 25 percent was projected to be building. This figure comes from a review of national data and reviewing developed pads of similar uses within the City. The tables below summarize the trip generation based on the values provided in the 91h addition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual: Weekday AM Peak Hour Adj. Street PM Peak Hour Adj. Street ITE LAND USE Enter Exitl Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 220 Apartments 998 997 1995 31 122 153 121 65 186 312 Business Hotel 509 509 1018 48 33 81 52 35 87 710 Office General 199 198 397 49 7 56 9 45 54 715 Office Single Tenant 134 134 268 36 5 41 6 34 40 826 Special Retail Center 1330 1329 2659 NR NR 0 72 91 163 841 New Car Sales 2342 2342 4684 209 69 278 152 228 380 850 Supermarket 1789 1789 3578 74 45 119 169 163 332 881 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -through 824 823 1647 31 28 59 84 84 168 912 Drive-in Bank 445 444 889 41 31 72 73 73 146 932 High -Turnover Sit Down Rest. 445 445 890 42 34 76 41 28 69 934 Fast Food Rest. with drive -through 1241 1240 2481 116 111 227 85 78 163 Unadjusted Value Total 102561 10250 20506 677 485 1162 864 924 1788 Internal Capture Trips 555 555 1110 0 0 0 63 63 126 Pass -by Trips 0 0 0 66 66 132 67 67 134 Volume Added to Adjacent Steets 97011 9695 19396 611 419 1030 734 794 1528 ! - Phase 1 Trip Generation Weekday AM Peak Hour Adj. Street PM Peak Hour Adj. Street ITE LAND USE Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 520 Elementary School 571 571 1142 216 169 385 41 49 90 820 Shopping Center 10227 10226 20453 285 175 460 853 924 1777 Unadjusted Value Total 10798 10797 21595 501 344 845 894 973 1867 Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips 0I Oil 0 01 01 01 01 01 0 Volume Added to Adjacent Steets 1 107981 107971 215951 5011 3441 8451 8941 9731 1867 Table 5 - Phase 2 Trip Generation CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNT, Weekday AM Peak Hour Adj. Street PM Peak Hour Adj. Street ITE LAND USE Enter Exitl Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 220 Apartments 998 997 1995 31 122 153 121 65 186 312 Business Hotel 509 509 1018 48 33 81 52 35 87 710 Office General 199 198 397 49 7 56 9 45 54 715 Office Single Tenant 134 134 268 36 5 41 6 34 40 826 Special Retail Center 1330 1329 2659 NR NR 0 72 91 163 841 New Car Sales 2342 2342 4684 209 69 278 152 228 380 850 Supermarket 1789 1789 3578 74 45 119 169 163 332 881 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -through 824 823 1647 31 28 59 84 84 168 912 Drive-in Bank 445 444 889 41 31 72 73 73 146 932 High -Turnover Sit Down Rest. 445 445 890 42 34 76 41 28 69 934 Fast Food Rest. with drive -through 1241 1240 2481 116 111 227 85 78 163 520 Elementary School 571 571 1142 216 169 385 41 49 90 820 Shopping Center 10227 10226 20453 285 175 460 853 924 1777 Unadjusted Value Total 21054 21047 42101 1178 829 2007 1758 1897 3655 Internal Capture Trips 555 555 1110 0 0 0 63 63 126 Pass -by Trips 0 0 0 66 66 132 67 67 134 Volume Added to Adjacent Steets 20499 204921 409911 11121 763 1875 1628 17671 3395 Table 6 - Total Trip Generation 4.2 Trip Distribution Trips generated by this development will exit (or enter) the study area through one of the seven nodes in Figure 5 denoted by letters A through F (this excludes internal capture, pass -by trips are dealt with separately). Through these nodes, the trips connect to other land uses in the region. The attractiveness of the other land areas is estimated using the existing traffic that passes through these nodes. For example, the volume of traffic exiting node A (heading northbound on US 93) compared to traffic volumes exiting all other nodes is an indicator of the relative attractiveness of the trips generated exiting through node A. A gravity model was used to distribute trips generated to the seven nodes. This provides, for each trip, the two endpoints (a specific lot in the development, and a node at the study boundary). With the endpoints known, the trips for each origin -destination pair were assigned to the shortest path with an all -or -nothing assignment. Driveways were assumed to connect to interior streets and not major arterials (US 93, Rose Crossing or Whitefish Stage). When travel times distances were similar, a left turn at a signal was preferred over the 3/4 intersection (93 Mid). Also when travel distances were similar for Phase 2, a right turn onto Reserve was assumed faster than a left turn onto US 93. In one case travel was split equally between two paths. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC Rose Crossing rn r V7 N - Reserve Figure 5 - Conceptualization of Origin -Destination Traffic Pattern Because pass -by will access land uses on the west side of the development, these pass -by trips were assumed to come from existing traffic on US 93. The pass -by trips were split proportionally among existing northbound and southbound traffic. Table 7 below summarizes the distribution by node. Am Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak exit enter exit enter A 91 133 173 160 B 134 195 253 234 C 32 46 60 55 D 79 116 150 139 E 83 122 158 146 F 26 37 48 45 Table 7 - Trip Distribution by Node While this project only proposed Phase 1 improvements MDT has requested we examine the first two Phases of the project therefore, this TIS reviews the existing condition and three future scenarios: 1. Existing condition — Reviews the function of the existing intersections with the current traffic counts. 2. Base Condition — Reviews a 5 year time horizon, 2021, assuming no development and applies the 2.6 percent growth factor to all movements at the existing intersections. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC 3. Base Condition + Phase 1 - Reviews the base condition and adds the turning movements created by the trip generation from the development for Phase 1 to all movements. 4. Base Condition + Phase 1 and Phase 2 - Reviews the base condition and adds the turning movements created by the trip generation from the development for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 to all movements. The figures below summarize the movements for each future scenario, larger copies are included in Appendix F. Existing turning movements and counts are provided in Figure 4. Although the exact timing of construction depends on a number of factors, five years was used for an assumed time for buildout. 3 0 N- 114 (47) 345(644)4(613) -2 106 L190)��34 (57) 0524(971)-�8M,�11) r i lif Figure 6 — Base Turning Movements and Trip Counts CTA Architects Engineers 13 Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC II II 1�82 (128) ,�. .. — L 26148) �r 18(3B) t dr168 (283) a.. 3(168 k 122(146] Y � 111(210i 11 1 r 1 ,r 55(fi0) I ry TL PEAK HOAR TRIPS DM aN No i 1L140(186) 365(640) --- 11 607(613) 105(190) 34(57) Figure 7 -Base + Phase 1 Turning Movements CTA Architects Engineers 14 Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC 1 � 1`129(130) � ♦ � 103fi BB (53) 52(352) H 4— 221024) 123(240) 55(00) 2a, �W - 0i0111 �L 237(420) I - u....�._ 524(971)y—054(912) �l I I I � LUJ�l15'LEG. G 1�—� 11` _ I 331141) OFF i �I tl`85 55) 441(802) (�I-778(913) 1 1` ,..,.... I .,�..,..... 128 (25511 1 ,r 34 (57) �71(1os1 ,, s _— aEnKnoua ralvs Figure 8 - Base + Phase 1 and Phase 2 Turning Movements 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 5.1 Capacity and Level of Service To analyze the level of service (LOS) and delay this reports uses Synchro 9 by Trafficware. 5.1.1 Existing Conditions Only two of the intersections/approaches analyzed in this report currently exist. These are: • Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage • Reserve and Whitefish Sage Table 7 below summarizes the existing delay and LOS at these locations. Figure 4 summarizes the trips used for this existing conditions analysis. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC TIME AM PM Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Type of Control TWSC Whitefish EB NA NA NA NA WB 9.9 A 11 B Stage & Rose Crossing NB 0 A 0 A SIB 0.7 A 1.1 A Type of Control Signalized Whitefish EB 12.8 B 25.8 C WB 15.7 B 15.3 B Stage & Reserve NIB 12.5 B 19.4 B SIB 10.5 B 16.3 B Table 8 - Existing Delay and Level of Service To perform the calculations for the signalized intersection it was assumed the signal was actuated but not coordinated, timing was optimized, and lane geometry reflects the existing condition. If the signal configuration is different than additional analysis may be required. Appendix G contains detailed level of service calculations for all scenarios. 5.1.2 Base Condition 2021 The base condition models traffic at a design year with no new growth generated form the development but only the back ground growth in traffic. For this analysis again 2.6 percent was used as annual growth rate over 5-years. Figure 6 summarizes the trips used in the base condition. Table 8 below summarized the delay and level of service. TIME AM PM Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Type of Control TWSC Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing EB NA NA NA NA WB 10.1 B 11.5 B NIB 0 A 0 A SIB 0.7 A 1.1 A Type of Control Signalized Whitefish Stage & Reserve EB 11.9 B 49.3 D WB 15.2 B 18.9 B NB 15.4 B 23 C SIB 13.9 B 17.1 B Table 9 - Base Delay and Level of Service CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC It should be noted that if no modifications are made, the PM Peak will have one leg of the Reserve and Whitefish Stage intersection that falls below level of service C even with no trips generated by this development. 5.1.3 Base Condition 2021 with Phase 1 Values below reflect the addition of the Phase 1 access points and turning movements and the addition of trips generated by this development. Where lane geometry exists intersection legs were modeled with this existing configuration, for new legs the model selects geometry appropriate to the scale of the project and number of turning movements. The traffic volume used for this analysis is summarized in Figure 7. TIME AM PM Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Type of Control TWSC Whitefish EB 15 C 39.6 E W B 34.9 D 190.4 F Stage & Rose Crossing NIB 5 A 3.6 A SIB 0.5 A 0.8 A Type of Control Signalized Whitefish EB 14.2 B 69.5 E WB 26.1 C 41.5 D Stage & Reserve NIB 22.7 C 39.2 D SIB 20.9 C 41.7 D Type of Control Signalized EB NA NA NA NA WB 18.5 B 29.3 D Rose Crossing NB 3.8 A 5.1 A & Highway 93 SIB 3.8 A 5.1 A Type of Control TWSC Mid EB NA NA NA NA WB 12.4 B 17.9 C Approach & Highway 93 NB 0 A 0 A SB 0.6 A 0.8 A Table 10 - Base + Phase 1 Delay and Level of Service 5.1.4 Base Condition 2021 with Phase 1 and Phase 2 CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC Values below reflect the addition of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 access points and turning movements. Where lane geometry exists intersection legs were modeled with this existing configuration, for new legs the model selects geometry appropriate to the scale of the project and number of turning movements. TIME AM PM Intersection Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Type of Control TWSC Whitefish EB 14.5 B 56.4 F Stage & WB 30.2 D $ F N B 2.9 A 0.3 A Rose SB 0.4 A 0.7 A Crossing Type of Control Signalized Whitefish EB 17.2 B 61.5 E W B 23.6 C 39.3 D Stage & Reserve N B 156.5 F 139.1 F SB 39.6 D 80.9 F Type of Control Signalized Rose Crossing & EB NA NA NA NA WB 19.7 B 20.2 C N B 4.2 A 7.2 A Highway 93 SB 4.5 A 6.4 A Type of Control TWSC EB NA NA NA NA Mid Approach & Highway 93 WB 13.5 B 48.1 E NB 0 A 0 A SB 0.7 A 0.8 A Type of Control Signalized South EB NA NA NA NA WB 60.4 E 61.9 E Approach & Highway 93 N B 4.3 A 6.7 A SB 3.7 A 15.2 B Type of Control TWSC Reserve Approach & EB 0 A 0 A W B 0 A 0.0 A NB NA NA NA NA Reserve SB 188.3 F $ F Table 11 - Base + Phase 1 and Phase 2 Level of Service and Delay CTA Architects Engineers 18 Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC 5.2 Warrant Analysis 5.2.1 Phase 1 The project requires a signal at the proposed intersection of Highway 93 and Rose Crossing to maintain an acceptable level of service. As this intersection does not exist and therefore no actual counts are not available the Base + Phase 1 condition was selected for the analysis period. Three warrants where selected for review. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (based on 2021 Phase 1 build -out condition) Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System Warrant 8, Roadway Network The data for the traffic model was imported to Warrant9 software from Trafficware. The analysis indicated that: • Warrant 3 Condition B was met • Warrant 6 was met • Warrant 8 was met ITE Trip Generation values only allow for projection of ADT and Peak Hour trips, therefore evaluating the 8 and 4 hour warrants is difficult without significant extrapolation. It should be noted that Warrant 3 is intended for sites that do not meet Warrant 1 and 2 but have significant peaking during a single hour. Thus, Warrant 3 being met is a good indicator that Warrant 1 and 2 will also likely be met. Both Warrant 3 and 8 are volume based. Warrant 6 is based on promoting progressive movement in a coordinated signal system. Given the number of signals and the AADT volumes currently present the addition of a new signal would improve platooning and benefit minor leg access. A warrant review report is included in Appendix H. 6.0 FINDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS The project will have significant impacts on the transportation system. A key impact will be the east -west connection between Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage provided by the extension of Rose Crossing. The 2006 transportation plan recommends the extension of this artery and provides a cursory analysis of potential impacts. The volumes in the Kalispell Transportation Plan (Table 3-18 of the plan), indicate that ten percent or more of the current traffic on Whitefish Stage would shift over to use Rose Crossing if built. Due to the broad impacts of the extension as well the creation of new future access points trip assignment is extremely complicated. MDT has a general policy not to use the travel demand models, which are developed for local long range transportation plans, for traffic impact studies. CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC Without a regional travel demand model, the shift in traffic could not be estimated. For trip assignment, a gravity model utilizing the "shortest path" was used to assign the trips generated from the 91" Addition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It can be noted that movements experience significant volume shift from Phase 1 to Phase 2 due to the methodology and the addition of the new access points. Provided this evaluation of Phase 2 becomes overly subjective. It also creates a condition where improvements recommended for Phase 1 may become irrelevant, inadequate, or erroneous when Phase 2 access points are created. To address this, this report limits improvements analysis to Phase 1, the limit of the requested entitlement, and recommends any future phase have a complete TIS done at that time that can be better informed with count data from actual conditions after Rose Crossing is built. Reviewing Table 12 below shows that the following legs will fall below the Level of Service C. Intersection Leg Time Period LOS Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing AM WB D Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing PM EB F Whitefish Stage & PM EB E Reserve Whitefish Stage & PM WB D Reserve Whitefish Stage & PM NB D Reserve Whitefish Stage & PM SIB D Reserve Rose Crossing & PM SIB E Highway 93 Table 12 - Failing Intersection Legs Phase 1 — Recommended Improvements 1. Intersection of Highway 93 and Rose Crossing — Recommend installing full movement signalized intersection. a. WB — Two dedicated left -turn lanes, two dedicated right -turn lanes b. SIB — Two dedicated left -turn lanes, Single through lane c. NB — Single through lane, Single through lane and combined right -turn lane. 2. Intersection of Whitefish Stage and Reserve — Improved signalized intersection with additional lanes. a. EB- Dedicated left -turn lane, single through -lane, single through and right - turn lane b. WB - Dedicated left -turn lane, single through -lane, single through and right -turn lane c. SIB — Dedicated left -turn lane, single through and right -turn lane CTA Architects Engineers Traffic Impact Study II North Town Center Proiect No.LHC KNTC d. NB - Dedicated left -turn lane, single through and right -turn lane 3. Intersection of Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage - Upgrade to a signalized intersection. a. EB - Dedicated left -turn lane, single through -lane, single right -turn lane b. WB- Single through and right -turn lane, dedicated left -turn lane c. SB - Single through and right -turn lane, dedicated left -turn lane d. NB - Single through and right -turn lane, dedicated left -turn lane If warrants cannot be met cursory analysis indicates a roundabout will provide the required level of service. A four way stop would also create an acceptable level of service but given the classification of this road, and its importance to the transportation network, a four way stop may not be acceptable to the area having jurisdiction. Findings 1. Regardless of the development the intersection of Whitefish Stage and Reserve will begin to have failing legs in the Base Year of 2021. 2. At full build -out with background growth the westbound left at Rose Crossing and 93 will fall below level of service C to D during the PM Peak. 3. This analysis considers full-buildout with background growth. Not all improvements will be required for capacity immediately. Improvement phasing should be considered to make sure they do not have a negative impact on the system. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION This project will have significant impact on the surround transportation system by completing a major east -west connector, additional trips, and installation additional signalization. These improvements will also have dramatic impacts are the land use and development pattern in the area. Of key importance will be the integration of these elements into the larger transportation and land use plans. With the recommend improvements all movements accept the left -turn out at Highway 93 and Rose Crossing will function at a level of service C or better through the design year of 2021. Give the model projects at that time the need for additional access points and traffic control will become necessary. Those improvement should be evaluated at that time to produce the best solution for the actual conditions. CTA Architects Engineers Phasing Plan "111" i prose a PuacF •: l LAND] PHASING ROAD PHASING Pf4l4EA RruSE S j�� aMF.4EC PwSET PHASE S PruSE 6 vl- PHUE + I� SIGNALS IA 110NAL f♦<: 4wAYSiOP f2AA — •�[SI Ht�I: H'•: k,k"F Rru9Ef M1Ew'l1/YR NU ZLELER WAN w,Ee rlowa_fe�v�TIIRH FRO WARRAME rre PHASE r. MOVE SK,RLTL FAOAI RASE LR�Eb✓v^TO ROAL'AIA,n' HSTHiETI AFTFR RPW 1Y EXfE1N9 TO ri'EST SY nqBERYE RVe RE /e .� ITeNALkfrtwSiGrdnti, PARTrFR HTTrrMullrR W1OOWI�R LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD PHASING PLAN 0 3 6000 KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER NOVEMBER 18. 2016 Scale" 1"=600' North Land use plan _-Ir g -- _-ir -- - - f I I RESIp�Nnµ wr i RES DUIT:y I __* I .IrIN- ROSE CROSSrq I�LTERtALI I I SCIgCt [y�'� 5�'ii I I a ion I 5I _ IIKONM' ________... _ �.r tiGMMCRCµ{ � COMME�� trCC�ur � I trCLalu — '- I � " o'er �•E •,I��n:Iti. I �+uERCrpA 'ir • I 111 - E -- - LAND USE LEGEND [:cNatERLInI� F:Fx I [wwERCu4 I,' � ■ .,. � ' CpA4RCUL Ie11 RESICfRie4 -I I { NON OEHSnv RESIpEN+W ±� � I I PnPicOPCn SPnLE I •. L SCFFC<,Y L E%ISTINGGA3 ��+ t LINE AND _ i EASEA1ENi I { STii_wwTE R RIVER � ArJ�Y - �Y • � „ I };II Y.E5f RESENvE pkIVE • Y 1 i� i LAND USE PLAN � _ �_� KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER a NOV E MBE R 18 2616 Scale: 1 •• = 600' North l, APPENDIX C MDT Review Letter Montana oepartment of Transportation Michael T T❑❑ley, Director MD7*2701 Prospect Avenue Steve Bullock, Governor PO Box 201001 Helena MT 59620- I001 November 4, 2016 Jeff Claridge 1179 Stillwater Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Subject: Claridge Property Approach Review Request Jeff, I wish to thank you for meeting with The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to discuss the US 93 and Whitefish Stage Road Access proposal for the Claridge property subdivision. We offer the following guidance based on our discussion of the conceptual plan presented to date: 1. MDT requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that considers all planned access to US 93 and Whitefish Stage Road and uses for phase 1 and 2 of development. The TIS must consider all permanent and interim improvements for the requested approaches. 2. The developer must propose an estimated traffic flow for Rose Crossing intersections with US 93 and Whitefish Stage Road for use in the TIS. 3. MDT will allow a 3/4 turn approach to US 93 at the proposed Rose Crossing alignment (middle access) with a stop control for all phases of the development. MDT has determined that a signal, temporary or permanent, at this location will not be allowed. 4. MDT will allow a full movement approach to Whitefish Stage Road for the proposed Rose Crossing Arterial. 5. MDT will allow a signalized approach to US 93 at the proposed road Alpha location when warranted and justified. The developer must recommend an interim design for the approach until such time a signal is constructed. G. MDT will consider allowing a signalized approach to US 93 for the proposed Road Bravo access when requested in future phases provided it is warranted and justified. 7. Once the review of the TIS is completed with MDT approvals, MDT will request all needed geometric and construction plans for approaches including facility improvements. 8. Please submit a hydraulic report to document the proposed design and residual effects the project will have on the highway system with respect to drainage. The hydraulic report will need to include the following items: ■ A description of the location including: city, county, state highway route within or adjacent to the development, mile marker and local streets. • A description of the property including; area, ground cover, historic drainage patterns, streams, drainage -ways, ditches, irrigation facilities, and culverts. • A description of the project and the proposed drainage concept including; land use, ground cover, drainage patterns, compliance with historical offsite runoff restrictions, detention storage, outlet design, and maintenance. ■ A drainage reap with topography, existing and proposed drainage facilities, delineated drainage basins, flow patterns, highway right of way, and facilities • Runoff calculations for historical and proposed peak flow rates for the 2 and 100-year events using the time of concentration to determine the intensity. Program & PolicyAnelysis & eau An Equal Opportunity Employer Rail, Transit and Planning Division Phone., (406) 444-3423 TTY: (800) 333-7592 Fax (406) 449-7671 web Page: WWW.. mdt slate. mt. us • Detention storage volume calculations required to limit the develop peak flows to the historic peak flow for the 2 year event. Outlet structure design including orifice calculations to control the 2-year event. ■ Emergency overflow design to pass the 100-year event. ■ The calculations should demonstrate that the developed peak flows do not exceed the historical peak flows during the 2-year event. Additionally, the 100-year event should be analyzed to determine how the water will pass through the system and what impact it will have on roadway overtopping, flooding structures, etc. ■ Available on request from MDT: A spreadsheet has been prepared to facilitate runoff calculations. The MDT -Rational Spreadsheet may be used to perform runoff calculations using the Rational Method. 9. Please submit approach applications complete with environmental checklists for each access location to James Freyholtz. He can be reached at 406-751-2066. Considering the potential size and scope of the proposed subdivision and the impacts it may have on the Kalispell area, MDT may request additional environmental analysis including documentation of public involvement as needed. 10. The developer must provide copies of any State or Federal agency permits required for this development. At a minimum, MDT requires a copy of the letter verifying your Storm Water Discharge Notice of Intent package has been submitted and is in order We look forward to seeing your response to the comments provided above. I can coordinate any meeting needed with MDT and can be reached at 406-444-941 G. Sincerely Mike Tierney, Planner Policy, Program, & Performance Analysis Bureau Rail, Transit & Planning Division Copies: Ed Toays, P.E., Missoula District Administrator Shane Stack, P.E., Engineering Services Supervisor Danielle Bolan, P.E., MDT Traffic Safety Operations Engineer James Freyholtz, F.E., Kalispell Area Traffic Engineer Justin Juelfs, Kalispell Area Maintenance Chief Dennis Oliver, Kalispell Area Maintenance Superintendent Stan Brelin, P.E., Traffic Safety Operations Unit Lead Vicki Crnich, Missoula Area Statewide and Urban Planner Stephanie Ray, CTA, 121 South Main Street, Livingston, MT 59047 Tom Jentz, City of Kalispell, 201 1 st Ave E, Kalispell, MT 59901 APPENDIX D Preliminary Plat �p N ' IVId AdVNIWll3Nd LL l 3StlHd - 2131N30 NMOl H1210N l-BdSllH)i mo tlNtl1NOW 'll3dSllHJI � z W � w R: W zNx aZN�z a W O O Z r x°wPLO aE",00~ O W p � w v O W � U z ° Mw F+I -E.n- - -�iOaC g _ _ cE°v �v_ �L ova m �.s - - w - w _ 4- 3rg o m2v vko R z 4ov Am �a E'E €3 tz- ° m&,o - o- - LFF aFF 3 a Z U lVId A21VNIWll321d LL O l 3StlHd -TJ31N30 NMOl Hl?JON ll3dSllH)i VNViNOW'll3dSllVA z .u� 3� 111333 �_ 14 , �y z i Z O �h, z�Er z o a �'TA�rVT G; -- - w Q- �oeas o, ga• w O 0 Z Z 6 `r) �OJ h ZO, fp>��s i — — � ��.r�xvnznoufsn 3 a APPENDIX E Trip Counts Intersection: Hwy 93 and project site approach AM Peak Hour Date: 7/17/14 000 000 0�0 0�0 ® 000 000 0�0 0�0 000 000 0�0 0�0 000 000 0�0 0�0 0000000®00�0 000 000 0�0 0®0 000 000 0®0 0®0 000 000 0�0 0�0 Peak Hour 7:30-8:30 Tota 1 175 245 298 323 261 300 334 270 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 578 0 0 640 0 1218 Peak Period Movement 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 167 0 334 Peak Hour Factor Movement #DIV/0! I #DIV/0! I #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.93 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.96 #DIV/0! 0.91 Peak Period (Approach) 157 177 Peak Hour Factor (Approach) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.92 0.90 G:\LHC_GTCMP\2 Traffic Impact Study\Revised TIS\Trip Counts\HWY 93 Counts.xls Mark Westenskow, PE Intersection: Hwy 93 and project site approach AM Peak Hour Date: 7/17/14 Existing Trips j 1218 i 640 578 I 0 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I 0 578 0',—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_— 640 578 1218 Hwy 93 Hwy 93 Project Trips 168 54 114 I j 27 27 0 37 115 57 78 0 21 i I I M 10 57 Oj — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 48 67 115 Hwy 93 Future Trips (With Project) 1386 j 694 692 I 27 667 0 37 115 57 78 0 i I I 1417 Approach Approach I i I i I 0 0 0 0 Approach 0 10 635 010 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 688 645 1 1333 Hwy 93 G:\LHC_GTCMP\2 Traffic Impact Study\Revised TIS\Trip Counts\HWY 93 Counts.xls Mark Westenskow, PE Intersection: Whitefish Stage and Reserve AM Peak Hour Date: 8/9/16 Time EBR EBT EBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL SBR SBT SBL 7:00 14 62 10 0 94 5 2 6 15 9 5 1 7:15 16 70 6 3 113 4 5 10 13 9 3 2 7:30 16 86 5 4 152 5 7 27 27 32 17 6 7:45 24 103 11 9 152 11 8 20 37 26 25 5 8:00 23 70 4 3 108 9 13 12 36 13 15 2 815 30 80 9 5 122 5 6 9 31 17 17 4 830 23 88 10 3 110 10 6 7 32 14 17 5 8:45 30 82 8 4 109 9 6 12 35 19 10 4 Peak Hour 7:15-8:15 Total 223 254 384 431 308 335 325 328 1 93 1 339 29 21 534 30 34 68 131 88 74 17 1458 Peak Period (Movement) 30 1 103 11 9 152 11 13 27 37 32 25 6 431 Peak Hour Factor Movement 0.78 0.82 0.66 0.58 0.88 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.89 0.69 0.74 0.71 0.85 Peak Period (Approach) 138 172 65 56 Peak Hour Factor (Approach) 0.84 0.85 0.90 0.80 G:\LHC_GTCMP\2 Traffic Impact Study\Revised TIS\Trip Counts\Reserve -Whitefish Stage Counts.xls Mark Westenskow, PE Intersection: Whitefish Stage and Reserve AM Peak Hour Date: 8/9/16 Existing Trips j 297 179 118 I ' 88 74 17 753 1214 29 461 339 I I i I 1458 i I i I /---- 21 ------------ 534 585 30 975 Reserve 390 131 68 34j ----------------- 197 233 1 430 ' I Project Trips j 168 1 54 114 I ' 27 27 0 37 115 57 78 0 21 i I I 199 i I i I ----o------------ 0 0 0 0 Reserve 0 10 57 ----------------- Oi 1 01 48 67 I 115 ' Future Trips (With Project) i 465 1 233 232 I ' 115 101 17 790 1329 86 539 339 114 i I I 1657 r i 1 I 21 ------------ 534 585 30 975 Reserve 390 141 125 ----------------- 34PO I' 245 300 545 I G:\LHC_GTCMP\2 Traffic Impact Study\Revised TIS\Trip Counts\Reserve -Whitefish Stage Counts.xls Mark Westenskow, PE Intersection: Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing AM Peak Hour Date: 7/17/14 ® 000 000 00© ©�0 000 �00 0®© 0�0 000 ®00 0®© 0�0 000�000®00�0 000 000 000 ©®0 000 000 0�© 0�0 Peak Hour 7:30-8:30 Tota 1 40 32 66 71 53 62 51 65 1 0 1 0 0 46 0 15 0 58 21 10 102 0 252 Peak Period Movement 0 1 0 0 16 0 4 0 19 10 4 34 0 71 Peak Hour Factor Movement #DIV/0! I #DIV/0! I #DIV/0! 0.72 #DIV/0! 0.94 #DIV/0! 0.76 0.53 0.63 0.75 #DIV/0! 0.89 Peak Period (Approach) 20 29 38 Peak Hour Factor (Approach) #DIV/0! 0.76 0.68 0.74 G:\LHC_GTCMP\2 Traffic Impact Study\Revised TIS\Trip Counts\Whitefish Stage - Rose Crossing Counts.xls Mark Westenskow, PE Intersection: Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing AM Peak Hour Date: 7/17/14 Existing Trips j 185 i 112 73 I 0 102 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I `WA 0 58 21 j----------------- 148 79 227 Whitefish Stage Whitefish Stage Project Trips 168 54 114 I j 27 27 0 37 115 57 78 0 21 i I I M 10 57 Oj — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 48 67 115 Whitefish Stage Future Trips (With Project) 353 j 166 187 I 27 129 10 37 115 57 78 0 i I I 451 Rose Rose I i I i ------------ 0 61 46 92 Rose 31 10 115 21 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 196 146 342 Whitefish Staqe G:\LHC_GTCMP\2 Traffic Impact Study\Revised TIS\Trip Counts\Whitefish Stage - Rose Crossing Counts.xls Mark Westenskow, PE APPENDIX F Existing Turning Movements, Trip Distribution, Trip Assignment Figures ❑❑ �o r v 118Q O%--OLLi Lz 1117 v zo 4--OT7 G7 89 /J �,' z d 0- El~ �0 Q = Y Y d El El � �n N Ln 8 [ISM L%--OLil tc 11176Q tiL4-- 1267 8= 11567 88 —.A Q LD l N 0 l 77 p�� 77 N l El MS — _ �voa d�vis NsiddilNM Z a F LULU 3 X aovds Nam J Lu Q U e a 1 o rc 2 � g / 3svds Nam rc Z .. u� u� wE zM rc PG � I m if �al'GiWqyg '0�4�86o�'„g g'„g £BS oo o90!S �oII o of £e AV _3�Vtls N3d0 3�bds N3tl0 —SIN s N � ■ %'� � LO 1 611L7 Ott 4---05061 8L5 0 rn ❑ ❑ _❑ M El�9 �n ❑ 00 sr N 09 �� (1IOZV �0)VVI ❑AT Ll�� OL� tc L �0 1117 GV 17L4-- ❑Z61 80 ❑567 88 �� 06L Q VI l /J 0 u� z d N 0 7 rl El~ of N 6> ❑ D 20 Q = Y Y LU _ _ woa aovis Hsla3ilHnn f - tlo ,1 n J a 3'JvaS N3a0 novas N3ao Q Q J z w pq o I I / — I li � fao Eb AVMH9IH 5l1 _31— _ _ d6o od 4aR — — —3Jtl�5 N3d0o — w / o LO 1- 1 M 17LFI � .� 9)8011 ❑ ❑ o �9 °/I° LLOON 91 S E l �❑587 5Z ❑17V 61�o r`❑� 611 � 4—❑85Q611 110❑Q178-110, 4-1150QLL ❑80Q o 6—%k t fOti0ZI 617L \7 z ❑ ❑ o 0 a v 77 l ❑ ❑ Ln ❑ �j ❑ �o 20 a= Y Y d — — avoa 3ovis Hsmaiiwn — I I I I l W s>ves kam r I J - - I has _r51o�0£'oaa000sooioi - 1 f 3ovasry moN —� L mZ678EIL--- 01 4---01180Q11611 Ln N u ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ C t' z O O N ❑ d L Of 19 El NLO �°o of 1 �O 0 Y 11LZZ6L�� 1 ❑tiV 6L�� V`091167 Ya FIZZ] ZL N--0gel 9Z 1186164-080Q06 --V:ZZL 4-089Q6r m0V6111 11LF]ZI� 76L�� "l-[1177T]6Z - 66] 9[] p L9 f fl� ❑❑� ❑ o o LO 00 N O ��pp, LO 0 00 oCjo ❑vr v Ln { ir_ _ Otl0213`Jtl1S HSIj311HM �. I p o 3des3eo _ I J I W F aovasH3ao o g -- — — — — —— —- ----- -- �— s°;W` — -_� �wo�s I s sao s- Joao o�-o�� .��.o�so� �=d. qo rva_ao coves Sao MHow - _ — El El 9 ❑ O pp� 7] 00 /NI LLO O f�L S 7 ❑� Q ❑96 �� `DDi 8L iii 008Q 7E�'� �` ZLZ 66 ]8L 6 V688 + -OL91 Q 69 ❑67[7 89 �` Z L 6Z ❑ �761 ZO8 l L96 \ LZIVVI8� 4— Z 6l ILL APPENDIX G Existing LOS and Delay Calculations HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 11/29/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 18 69 25 12 122 Future Vol, veh/h 55 18 69 25 12 122 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 60 20 75 27 13 133 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 248 89 0 0 102 0 Stage 1 89 - - - - - Stage 2 159 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 740 969 1490 Stage 1 934 - - Stage 2 870 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 733 969 1490 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 733 - - Stage 1 934 Stage 2 862 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 0 0.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 780 1490 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.102 0.009 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - Base Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 11/29/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 385 106 34 607 24 149 77 39 19 84 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 385 106 34 607 24 149 77 39 19 84 100 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 418 115 37 660 26 162 84 42 21 91 109 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 263 669 184 358 846 33 374 184 77 100 277 293 Arrive On Green 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 753 1407 387 868 1780 70 755 522 218 69 784 830 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 533 37 0 686 288 0 0 221 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 753 0 1794 868 0 1850 1495 0 0 1683 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 11.6 1.7 0.0 16.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 0.0 11.6 13.4 0.0 16.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.04 0.56 0.15 0.10 0.49 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 263 0 853 358 0 880 635 0 0 669 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.62 0.10 0.00 0.78 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 300 0 941 400 0 971 635 0 0 669 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 0.0 10.3 15.2 0.0 11.5 13.1 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 3.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 0.0 5.9 0.4 0.0 9.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.4 0.0 11.4 15.4 0.0 15.2 15.4 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 569 723 288 221 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 15.2 15.4 13.9 Approach LOS B B B B Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 29.4 23.0 29.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 27.5 18.5 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.0 20.4 7.0 18.2 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 2.3 4.5 2.5 5.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Base Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/02/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 456 483 1177 380 225 1000 Future Volume (veh/h) 456 483 1177 380 225 1000 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 496 525 1279 413 245 1087 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1126 518 1351 424 138 1802 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 2746 832 290 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 496 525 840 852 245 1087 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1716 290 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 18.0 24.4 26.6 1.4 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 18.0 24.4 26.6 28.0 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1126 518 901 874 138 1802 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 1.01 0.93 0.97 1.77 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1126 518 901 874 138 1802 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5 18.5 12.6 13.2 27.5 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 42.9 17.6 24.9 375.0 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.0 13.9 16.1 18.4 16.5 6.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.8 61.4 30.2 38.1 402.5 11.1 LnGrp LOS B F C D F B Approach Vol, veh/h 1021 1692 1332 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.8 34.2 83.1 Approach LOS D C F Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.5 32.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 28.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 28.6 30.0 20.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Base Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 12/02/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 640 190 57 613 47 204 105 35 44 130 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 640 190 57 613 47 204 105 35 44 130 108 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 696 207 62 666 51 222 114 38 48 141 117 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 242 678 202 120 840 64 357 163 48 128 320 235 Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 731 1380 410 615 1709 131 730 454 134 164 893 655 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 0 903 62 0 717 374 0 0 306 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 731 0 1790 615 0 1840 1318 0 0 1712 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 19.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 29.5 0.0 29.5 29.5 0.0 19.5 15.2 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.07 0.59 0.10 0.16 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 0 880 120 0 904 568 0 0 683 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 1.03 0.52 0.00 0.79 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 0 880 120 0 904 568 0 0 683 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 15.3 30.0 0.0 12.7 17.1 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.0 37.1 3.8 0.0 4.9 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.9 0.0 23.5 1.1 0.0 11.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.2 0.0 52.3 33.8 0.0 17.6 23.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C F C B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1056 779 374 306 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.3 18.9 23.0 17.1 Approach LOS D B C B Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 34.0 26.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 29.5 21.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.2 31.5 10.2 31.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Base Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Reserve HCM 2010 methodology does not support more than 4 approaches. 12/02/2016 Base Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 11/29/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 36 158 85 22 136 Future Vol, veh/h 60 36 158 85 22 136 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 65 39 172 92 24 148 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 414 218 0 0 264 0 Stage 1 218 - - - - - Stage 2 196 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 595 822 1300 Stage 1 818 - - Stage 2 837 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 583 822 1300 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 583 - - Stage 1 818 Stage 2 820 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 1.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 654 1300 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.16 0.018 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.1 - Base Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/02/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 168 92 723 9 109 826 Future Volume (veh/h) 168 92 723 9 109 826 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 183 100 786 10 118 898 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 416 191 2381 30 559 2355 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 3672 46 679 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 100 389 407 118 898 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1855 679 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 2.5 4.0 4.0 7.8 4.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 191 1177 1234 559 2355 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.52 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1472 677 1177 1234 559 2355 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 17.4 3.0 3.0 4.7 3.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 2.2 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 1.2 2.1 2.2 0.8 2.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.9 19.6 3.8 3.7 5.5 3.6 LnGrp LOS B B A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 283 796 1016 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.5 3.8 3.8 Approach LOS B A A Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.5 32.5 9.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 28.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.0 9.8 4.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 11.5 10.3 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Base + Phase 1 AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 12/02/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 385 106 34 607 140 149 123 39 98 116 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 385 106 34 607 140 149 123 39 98 116 100 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 418 115 37 660 152 162 134 42 107 126 109 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 170 710 195 360 740 170 291 227 63 211 244 181 Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 669 1407 387 868 1466 338 585 620 171 392 667 495 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 533 37 0 812 338 0 0 342 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 669 0 1794 868 0 1803 1376 0 0 1554 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 0.0 14.6 2.2 0.0 28.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.8 0.0 14.6 16.8 0.0 28.3 14.7 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 0.48 0.12 0.31 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 170 0 906 360 0 910 580 0 0 637 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.59 0.10 0.00 0.89 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 173 0 915 364 0 919 580 0 0 637 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 0.0 12.2 18.1 0.0 15.5 18.4 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 10.9 4.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 0.0 7.4 0.5 0.0 16.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.5 0.0 13.1 18.2 0.0 26.5 22.7 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 569 849 338 342 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 26.1 22.7 20.9 Approach LOS B C C C Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 39.7 30.0 39.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 35.5 25.5 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.7 33.8 14.0 30.3 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 3.0 1.3 3.5 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Base + Phase 1 AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Reserve HCM 2010 methodology does not support more than 4 approaches. 12/02/2016 Base + Phase 1 AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 12/02/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 13.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 83 111 55 122 18 162 69 25 12 122 37 Future Vol, veh/h 26 83 111 55 122 18 162 69 25 12 122 37 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 28 90 121 60 133 20 176 75 27 13 133 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 686 633 153 665 640 89 173 0 0 102 0 0 Stage 179 179 - 441 441 - - - - - - - Stage 2 507 454 - 224 199 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 362 397 893 374 393 969 1404 1490 Stage 823 751 - 595 577 - - - Stage 2 548 569 - 779 736 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 221 341 893 231 337 969 1404 1490 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 221 341 - 231 337 - - - Stage 1 714 743 516 500 Stage 2 342 493 586 729 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15 34.9 5 0.5 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1404 221 341 893 295 969 1490 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.125 0.128 0.265 0.135 0.652 0.02 0.009 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 23.7 19.3 9.7 37.5 8.8 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A C C A E A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 0.4 1 0.5 4.2 0.1 0 - Base + Phase 1 AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 10- Hwy 93 & Mid Approach 12/02/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t ) tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 30 702 217 58 902 Future Vol, veh/h 0 30 702 217 58 902 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 33 763 236 63 980 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 499 0 0 999 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 517 689 Stage 1 0 - - Stage 2 0 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 517 689 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 0 0.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 517 689 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 0.091 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 10.8 HCM Lane LOS B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.3 Base + Phase 1 AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/02/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 283 128 1163 33 126 1092 Future Volume (veh/h) 283 128 1163 33 126 1092 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 308 139 1264 36 137 1187 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 460 212 2564 73 353 2582 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 3608 100 422 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 308 139 636 664 137 1187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1845 422 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 5.5 10.0 10.0 13.4 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 5.5 10.0 10.0 23.4 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 460 212 1291 1346 353 2582 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.66 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 942 433 1291 1346 353 2582 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 27.1 3.8 3.8 8.7 3.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 3.4 1.3 1.3 3.2 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.8 2.6 5.3 5.5 1.8 4.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 30.5 5.1 5.1 11.9 4.2 LnGrp LOS C C A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 447 1300 1324 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 5.1 5.0 Approach LOS C A A Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.5 52.5 13.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 48.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 12.0 25.4 7.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 25.0 17.7 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 12/02/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 640 190 57 613 186 204 160 35 194 190 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 640 190 57 613 186 204 160 35 194 190 108 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 696 207 62 666 202 222 174 38 211 207 117 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 128 678 202 120 675 205 281 178 35 266 207 109 Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 635 1380 410 615 1373 416 530 496 98 508 579 304 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 0 903 62 0 868 434 0 0 535 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 635 0 1790 615 0 1789 1125 0 0 1391 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 29.5 0.0 29.5 29.5 0.0 28.7 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.23 0.51 0.09 0.39 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 0 880 120 0 880 494 0 0 582 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.19 0.00 1.03 0.52 0.00 0.99 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 128 0 880 120 0 880 494 0 0 582 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.0 0.0 15.3 30.0 0.0 15.1 19.7 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 141.1 0.0 37.1 3.8 0.0 27.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.1 0.0 23.5 1.1 0.0 20.6 9.8 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 171.1 0.0 52.3 33.8 0.0 42.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1056 930 434 535 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.5 41.5 39.2 41.7 Approach LOS E D D D Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 34.0 26.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 29.5 21.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 23.5 31.5 23.5 31.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Reserve HCM 2010 methodology does not support more than 4 approaches. 12/02/2016 Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 12/02/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 46.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 158 210 30 146 36 194 158 85 22 136 45 Future Vol, veh/h 48 158 210 30 146 36 194 158 85 22 136 45 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 52 172 228 33 159 39 211 172 92 24 148 49 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 939 906 172 946 885 218 197 0 0 264 0 0 Stage 220 220 - 640 640 - - - - - - - Stage 2 719 686 - 306 245 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 244 276 872 241 284 822 1376 1300 Stage 782 721 - 464 470 - - - Stage 2 420 448 - 704 703 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 88 221 872 56 227 822 1376 1300 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 88 221 - 56 227 - - - Stage 1 640 706 380 384 Stage 2 192 366 385 688 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 39.6 190.4 3.6 0.8 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1376 88 221 872 149 822 1300 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.153 0.593 0.777 0.262 1.284 0.048 0.018 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 93.3 61.8 10.6 227.4 9.6 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A F F B F A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 2.7 5.5 1.1 11.5 0.1 0.1 - Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 10- Hwy 93 & Mid Approach 12/02/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t ) tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 77 1119 233 69 1176 Future Vol, veh/h 0 77 1119 233 69 1176 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 84 1216 253 75 1278 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 735 0 0 1470 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 362 455 Stage 1 0 - - Stage 2 0 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 362 455 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.9 0 0.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 362 455 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.231 0.165 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.9 14.5 HCM Lane LOS C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.6 Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/1/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 129 751 46 156 889 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 129 751 46 156 889 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 140 816 50 170 966 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 455 209 2225 136 518 2325 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 3481 208 636 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 140 426 440 170 966 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1826 636 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 3.6 4.6 4.6 7.0 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 3.6 4.6 4.6 11.7 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 455 209 1162 1199 518 2325 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.67 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1453 669 1162 1199 518 2325 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 17.6 3.3 3.3 5.9 3.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 3.7 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 1.8 2.5 2.6 1.4 2.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.6 21.3 4.2 4.2 7.6 4.0 LnGrp LOS B C A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 214 866 1136 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.7 4.2 4.5 Approach LOS B A A Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.5 32.5 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 28.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.6 13.7 5.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 12.8 9.8 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Hwy 93 & South Approach 12/1/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 0 957 91 62 802 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 0 957 91 62 802 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 0 1040 99 67 872 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 413 190 2679 255 410 2902 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 3360 311 492 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 0 563 576 67 872 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1808 492 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 12.6 12.6 6.2 8.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 12.6 12.6 18.9 8.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 413 190 1451 1482 410 2902 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.16 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 413 190 1451 1482 410 2902 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.4 0.0 3.6 3.6 6.1 3.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.5 0.0 6.4 6.6 0.9 4.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 0.0 4.3 4.3 6.9 3.5 LnGrp LOS E A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 77 1139 939 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.4 4.3 3.7 Approach LOS E A A Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 127.5 127.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 123.0 123.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.6 20.9 5.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 27.2 27.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.1 HCM 2010 LOS A Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 12/1/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 441 128 34 776 65 216 93 39 19 119 196 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 441 128 34 776 65 216 93 39 19 119 196 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 479 139 37 843 71 235 101 42 21 129 213 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 180 830 241 368 1013 85 217 73 30 50 219 338 Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 608 1389 403 802 1695 143 516 222 92 57 666 1027 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 0 618 37 0 914 378 0 0 363 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 608 0 1792 802 0 1838 830 0 0 1750 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 26.1 3.7 0.0 49.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 55.2 0.0 26.1 29.7 0.0 49.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.08 0.62 0.11 0.06 0.59 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 0 1071 368 0 1099 320 0 0 607 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.58 0.10 0.00 0.83 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 264 0 1317 478 0 1351 320 0 0 607 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.9 0.0 15.2 24.3 0.0 19.8 48.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 3.8 108.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 13.0 0.8 0.0 25.8 20.5 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.4 0.0 15.7 24.4 0.0 23.6 156.5 0.0 0.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D B C C F D Approach Vol, veh/h 654 951 378 363 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.2 23.6 156.5 39.6 Approach LOS B C F D Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.0 78.1 45.0 78.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.5 90.5 40.5 90.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 42.5 57.2 24.3 51.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 16.4 4.9 17.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Reserve HCM 2010 methodology does not support more than 4 approaches. 12/1/2016 Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 12/1/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 14.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 46 152 123 55 221 18 57 69 25 12 122 69 Future Vol, veh/h 46 152 123 55 221 18 57 69 25 12 122 69 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 50 165 134 60 240 20 62 75 27 13 133 75 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 529 422 170 492 447 89 208 0 0 102 0 0 Stage 196 196 - 213 213 - - - - - - - Stage 2 333 226 - 279 234 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 460 523 874 487 506 969 1363 1490 Stage 806 739 - 789 726 - - - Stage 2 681 717 - 728 711 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 261 493 874 293 477 969 1363 1490 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 261 493 - 293 477 - - - Stage 1 767 732 751 691 Stage 2 414 683 473 704 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 30.2 2.9 0.4 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1363 261 493 874 424 969 1490 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.192 0.335 0.153 0.708 0.02 0.009 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 22 15.9 9.9 31.6 8.8 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A C C A D A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 1.5 0.5 5.4 0.1 0 - Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 10- Hwy 93 & Mid Approach 12/1/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t ) tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 58 771 217 58 864 Future Vol, veh/h 0 58 771 217 58 864 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 63 838 236 63 939 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 537 0 0 1074 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 488 645 Stage 1 0 - - Stage 2 0 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 488 645 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 0 0.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 488 645 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.098 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 11.2 HCM Lane LOS B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.3 Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 18: Reserve & Reserve Approach 12/1/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 22.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + 1� r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 524 864 237 139 79 Future Vol, veh/h 0 524 864 237 139 79 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 570 939 258 151 86 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1197 0 0 1638 1068 Stage 1 - - - 1068 - Stage 2 - 570 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 583 — 111 269 Stage 1 - 330 - Stage 2 - 566 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 583 — 111 269 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - — 111 - Stage 1 330 Stage 2 566 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 188.3 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 583 111 269 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 1.361 0.319 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 281.4 24.5 HCM Lane LOS A F C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 10.4 1.3 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/1/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 138 1357 46 135 1178 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 138 1357 46 135 1178 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 150 1475 50 147 1280 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 469 216 2283 77 304 2313 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 3586 118 340 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 150 746 779 147 1280 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1842 340 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 3.9 10.8 10.9 17.1 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 3.9 10.8 10.9 28.0 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 469 216 1157 1204 304 2313 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.70 0.64 0.65 0.48 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1446 665 1157 1204 304 2313 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 17.7 4.4 4.5 13.5 4.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 4.0 2.8 2.7 5.4 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 1.9 6.1 6.3 2.2 4.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.4 21.6 7.2 7.2 18.9 5.0 LnGrp LOS B C A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 208 1525 1427 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.2 7.2 6.4 Approach LOS C A A Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.5 32.5 10.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 28.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 12.9 30.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 13.6 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 8: Hwy 93 & South Approach 12/1/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t Vii tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 109 0 1333 272 186 941 Future Volume (veh/h) 109 0 1333 272 186 941 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 118 0 1449 296 202 1023 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 1 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 413 190 2411 482 223 2902 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 1583 3034 588 275 3632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 118 0 860 885 202 1023 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1583 1770 1759 275 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 0.0 25.5 27.4 95.6 11.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0.0 25.5 27.4 123.0 11.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 413 190 1451 1442 223 2902 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.59 0.61 0.90 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 413 190 1451 1442 223 2902 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.1 0.0 4.7 4.9 33.5 3.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 1.8 2.0 39.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 0.0 12.9 13.8 10.8 5.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.9 0.0 6.5 6.9 73.2 3.8 LnGrp LOS E A A E A Approach Vol, veh/h 118 1745 1225 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.9 6.7 15.2 Approach LOS E A B Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 127.5 127.5 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 123.0 123.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 29.4 125.0 6.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 67.9 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 12/1/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 802 255 57 913 55 324 108 35 267 88 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 802 255 57 913 55 324 108 35 267 88 44 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 872 277 62 992 60 352 117 38 290 96 48 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 146 877 278 56 1124 68 322 92 30 321 92 46 Arrive On Green 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 534 1356 431 487 1739 105 962 320 104 962 318 159 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 0 1149 62 0 1052 507 0 0 434 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 534 0 1787 487 0 1844 1385 0 0 1439 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.8 0.0 89.2 1.3 0.0 65.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 90.5 0.0 89.2 90.5 0.0 65.7 40.5 0.0 0.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.06 0.69 0.07 0.67 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 0 1155 56 0 1192 444 0 0 459 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.05 0.00 0.99 1.11 0.00 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 146 0 1155 56 0 1192 444 0 0 459 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.0 0.0 24.5 69.9 0.0 20.4 51.7 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 88.0 0.0 25.2 152.9 0.0 8.0 87.3 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.2 0.0 51.5 4.5 0.0 35.7 27.9 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 150.1 0.0 49.7 224.7 0.0 28.4 139.1 0.0 0.0 80.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D F C F F Approach Vol, veh/h 1302 1114 507 434 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.5 39.3 139.1 80.9 Approach LOS E D F F Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.0 95.0 45.0 95.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.5 90.5 40.5 90.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 42.5 92.5 42.5 92.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 68.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Reserve HCM 2010 methodology does not support more than 4 approaches. 12/1/2016 Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 12/1/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 131.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 108 352 240 60 324 36 11 158 85 22 136 99 Future Vol, veh/h 108 352 240 60 324 36 11 158 85 22 136 99 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 117 383 261 65 352 39 12 172 92 24 148 108 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 667 537 202 683 545 218 255 0 0 264 0 0 Stage 1 249 249 - 242 242 - - - - - - - Stage 2 418 288 - 441 303 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 372 450 839 363 446 822 1310 1300 Stage 755 701 - 762 705 - - - Stage 2 612 674 - 595 664 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 110 435 839 - 61 431 822 1310 1300 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 110 435 - - 61 431 - - - Stage 1 747 686 754 697 Stage 2 285 667 177 649 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 56.4 $ 415.2 0.3 0.7 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1310 110 435 839 221 822 1300 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 1.067 0.88 0.311 1.889 0.048 0.018 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 179.1 49.5 11.2$ 453.2 9.6 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A F E B F A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 7.1 9.1 1.3 29.8 0.1 0.1 - Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 10- Hwy 93 & Mid Approach 12/1/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t ) tt Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 271 1132 233 69 1127 Future Vol, veh/h 0 271 1132 233 69 1127 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 295 1230 253 75 1225 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 742 0 0 1484 0 Stage 1 - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 358 449 Stage 1 0 - - Stage 2 0 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 358 449 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 48.1 0 0.8 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 358 449 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.823 0.167 HCM Control Delay (s) 48.1 14.6 HCM Lane LOS E B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 7.3 0.6 Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 18: Reserve & Reserve Approach 12/1/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 256.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations + 1� r Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 971 912 420 227 436 Future Vol, veh/h 0 971 912 420 227 436 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1055 991 457 247 474 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1448 0 0 2275 1220 Stage 1 - - - 1220 - Stage 2 - 1055 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 468 — 44 — 220 Stage 1 - 279 - Stage 2 - 335 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 468 — 44 — 220 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - — 44 - Stage 1 279 Stage 2 335 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 $ 1146.9 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 468 44 220 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 5.608 2.154 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 $ 2255.5$ 569.7 HCM Lane LOS A F F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 28.6 36.6 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Base + Phase 1 and 2 Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 11/29/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 29 339 93 30 534 21 131 68 34 17 74 88 Future Volume (veh/h) 29 339 93 30 534 21 131 68 34 17 74 88 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 368 101 33 580 23 142 74 37 18 80 96 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 264 605 166 349 765 30 407 202 86 101 313 331 Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 813 1408 386 920 1780 71 752 510 216 62 790 835 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 0 469 33 0 603 253 0 0 194 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 813 0 1795 920 0 1850 1478 0 0 1687 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 10.4 1.5 0.0 14.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.1 0.0 10.4 11.9 0.0 14.3 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.04 0.56 0.15 0.09 0.49 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 264 0 771 349 0 795 694 0 0 745 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.61 0.09 0.00 0.76 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 316 0 885 407 0 912 694 0 0 745 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 0.0 11.4 16.0 0.0 12.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 3.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 0.0 5.3 0.4 0.0 7.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.5 0.0 12.3 16.1 0.0 15.7 12.5 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 501 636 253 194 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 15.7 12.5 11.5 Approach LOS B B B B Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 26.7 25.0 26.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 25.5 20.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.5 18.1 6.0 16.3 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 2.3 4.2 2.5 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Existing Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 11/29/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 16 61 22 11 107 Future Vol, veh/h 48 16 61 22 11 107 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 52 17 66 24 12 116 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 218 78 0 0 90 0 Stage 1 78 - - - - - Stage 2 140 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 770 983 1505 Stage 1 945 - - Stage 2 887 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 763 983 1505 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 763 - - Stage 1 945 Stage 2 879 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 0 0.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 808 1505 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.086 0.008 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - Existing Condition AM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 11/29/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 563 167 50 539 41 179 92 31 39 114 95 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 563 167 50 539 41 179 92 31 39 114 95 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 135 612 182 54 586 45 195 100 34 42 124 103 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 299 678 202 179 840 65 368 177 52 125 321 233 Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 792 1380 410 681 1708 131 760 495 145 154 896 651 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 0 794 54 0 631 329 0 0 269 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 792 0 1790 681 0 1840 1400 0 0 1701 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 24.3 4.7 0.0 15.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.5 0.0 24.3 29.0 0.0 15.9 11.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.07 0.59 0.10 0.16 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 299 0 880 179 0 904 597 0 0 679 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.00 0.70 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 0 880 179 0 904 597 0 0 679 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.6 0.0 13.9 27.2 0.0 11.8 15.8 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 12.4 0.9 0.0 2.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 0.0 14.9 0.9 0.0 8.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.7 0.0 26.4 28.1 0.0 14.2 19.4 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 929 685 329 269 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.8 15.3 19.4 16.3 Approach LOS C B B B Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 34.0 26.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 29.5 21.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.3 27.5 9.0 31.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 2.5 1.7 3.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Existing Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 11/29/2016 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 32 139 75 19 120 Future Vol, veh/h 53 32 139 75 19 120 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 58 35 151 82 21 130 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 364 192 0 0 233 0 Stage 1 192 - - - - - Stage 2 172 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 635 850 1335 Stage 1 841 - - Stage 2 858 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 624 850 1335 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 624 - - Stage 1 841 Stage 2 843 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11 0 1.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 693 1335 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.133 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - Existing Condition PM Peak Hour.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Whitefish Stage & Reserve 12/02/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii t t Vii Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 640 190 57 613 186 204 160 35 44 190 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 640 190 57 613 186 204 160 35 44 190 108 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 153 696 207 62 666 202 222 174 38 48 207 117 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 270 806 240 237 734 223 389 483 106 466 327 185 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 2691 800 1774 2678 812 1774 1482 324 1774 1119 632 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 153 458 445 62 440 428 222 0 212 48 0 324 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 1770 1722 1774 1770 1720 1774 0 1806 1774 0 1751 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 15.8 15.8 1.6 15.6 15.6 5.1 0.0 5.8 1.2 0.0 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 15.8 15.8 1.6 15.6 15.6 5.1 0.0 5.8 1.2 0.0 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 530 516 237 485 471 389 0 589 466 0 511 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.86 0.86 0.26 0.91 0.91 0.57 0.00 0.36 0.10 0.00 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 530 516 282 492 478 389 0 589 523 0 511 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 21.4 21.4 17.0 22.7 22.7 16.8 0.0 16.7 14.8 0.0 19.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 13.8 14.1 0.6 20.3 20.9 2.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.0 5.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.1 9.7 9.4 0.8 10.3 10.1 1.4 0.0 3.2 0.6 0.0 5.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.0 35.2 35.6 17.5 43.0 43.6 18.8 0.0 18.4 14.8 0.0 25.8 LnGrp LOS B D D B D D B B B C Approach Vol, veh/h 1056 930 434 372 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 41.6 18.6 24.4 Approach LOS C D B C Timer Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 25.6 7.9 23.9 9.6 23.4 9.5 22.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 19.0 5.0 18.0 5.1 18.9 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.2 7.8 3.6 17.8 7.1 12.4 6.0 17.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour - Mitigation.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/1/2016 t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations rr t t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 625 312 1224 51 345 1109 Future Volume (veh/h) 625 312 1224 51 345 1109 Number 3 18 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 679 339 1330 55 375 1205 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 2 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 707 573 2406 99 540 1294 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 2787 3557 143 755 1863 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 679 339 679 706 375 1205 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1721 1393 1770 1837 377 1863 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.6 9.9 17.1 17.2 44.1 50.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.6 9.9 17.1 17.2 61.3 50.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 707 573 1229 1276 540 1294 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.69 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 707 573 1229 1276 540 1294 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.4 32.3 6.8 6.8 22.0 11.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.3 1.6 1.8 1.7 7.2 13.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.7 3.9 8.7 9.2 5.1 30.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.7 34.0 8.6 8.6 29.2 25.1 LnGrp LOS E C A A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1018 1385 1580 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.1 8.6 26.1 Approach LOS D A C Timer Assigned Phs 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 67.0 67.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.5 62.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 19.2 63.3 19.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 37.3 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour - Mitigation.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Whitefish Stage & Rose Crossing 12/02/2016 -11 --1. .4--- t t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii t r r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 158 210 60 146 36 194 158 85 22 136 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 48 158 210 60 146 36 194 158 85 22 136 45 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 172 228 65 159 39 211 172 92 24 148 49 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 508 558 474 481 433 106 630 434 232 184 643 601 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1180 1863 1583 981 1446 355 1181 1143 612 100 1695 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 172 228 65 0 198 211 0 264 172 0 49 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1180 1863 1583 981 0 1800 1181 0 1755 1795 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 2.0 3.3 1.5 0.0 2.4 4.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 2.0 3.3 3.5 0.0 2.4 5.9 0.0 3.1 1.8 0.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.35 0.14 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 508 558 474 481 0 539 630 0 666 827 0 601 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.31 0.48 0.14 0.00 0.37 0.33 0.00 0.40 0.21 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 913 1196 1017 817 0 1156 941 0 1127 1275 0 1017 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 7.6 8.0 8.9 0.0 7.7 8.0 0.0 6.4 5.9 0.0 5.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.2 7.9 8.8 9.1 0.0 8.1 8.3 0.0 6.7 6.1 0.0 5.6 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 452 263 475 221 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 8.4 7.4 6.0 Approach LOS A A A A Timer Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.1 12.9 15.1 12.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.9 5.4 3.8 5.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Base + Phase 1 PM Peak Hour - Mitigation.syn Synchro 9 Light Report Erik Garberg Page 1 APPENDIX H Warrants Summary Warrants Summary Report 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Minor Street Street Name Hwy 93 Rose Crossing Direction NB/SB WB Number of Lane: 2 2 Approch Speed 55 30 Warrant Met? Notes Warrant 3, Peak Hour Yes Condition A Met? No 0 Hours met (1 required) Condition B Met? Yes 1 Hours met (1 required) Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Yes Warrant 8, Roadway Network Yes Federal 2003 Warrant 1: Eight -hour Vehicular Volume 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Name: Hwy 93 Major Street Direction: NB/SB Minor Street Direction: WB WARRANT 1 MET? No Details: Condition A Met? No 1 Hours met (8 required) Condition B Met? No 1 Hours met (8 required) Hour Major Street Vehicles High Volume Minor 70% Standard Met? 56% Standard Met? (Total of Both Approaches) Approach Vehicles Cond. A OR Cond. B Cond. AAND Cond. E Condition A Condition B Condition A Condition B 70% 70% 56% 56% Column Column Column Column 00:00to 01:00 2,408 408 Yes Yes Yes Yes Condition A Volume — 70% Yes Volume — 70% Yes column (420)? column (630)? Volume — 56% Yes Volume — 56% Yes column (336)? column (504)? Condition B Volume >=70% Yes Volume >=70% Yes column (630)? column (70)? Volume >= 56% Yes Volume >= 56% Yes column (504)? column (56)? 00:15 to 01:15 1,806 306 Yes Yes Yes Yes Condition A Volume — 70% Yes Volume — 70% Yes column (420)? column (630)? Volume — 56% Yes Volume — 56% Yes column (336)? column (504)? Condition B Volume >=70% Yes Volume >=70% Yes column (630)? column (70)? Volume >= 56% Yes Volume >= 56% Yes column (504)? column (56)? 00:30 to 01:30 1,204 204 Yes Yes Yes Yes Condition A Volume — 70% Yes Volume — 70% Yes column (420)? column (630)? Volume — 56% Yes Volume — 56% Yes column (336)? column (504)? Condition B Volume >=70% Yes Volume >=70% Yes column (630)? column (70)? Volume >= 56% Yes Volume >= 56% Yes column (504)? column (56)? 00:45 to 01:45 602 102 No No No Yes Condition A Volume — 70% Yes Volume — 70% MNO column (420)? column (630)? Volume — 56% Yes Volume — 56% -NO column (336)? column (504)? Condition B Volume >=70% No Volume >=70% Yes column (630)? column (70)? Volume >= 56% Yes Volume >= 56% Yes column (504)? column (56)? Federal 2003 2 Warrant 2: Four-hour Vehicular Volume 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Minor Street Street Name Hwy 93 Rose Crossing Direction NB/SB WB Number of Lane: 2 2 Approch Speed 55 30 Warrant 2 Met? § No Details: Notes 1 Hours met (4 required) Low population No � 200 M 0 Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Community Population Less Than'10,000 or Major Street Approach Speed Above 40 mph 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Major Sleet -Total of Both Approach {VPHQ Wana nt Curve Marra nted • Unwarranted 1 Major, 1 Minor 1 Major, 2+ Minor 2+ Major, 1 Minor 2+ Maim. 2+ Minor Federal 2003 3 Hourly Volumes Hour Major Street Total All Approaches (vph) Minor Street Highest Volume Approach (vph) 00:00:00 - 01:00:00 2408 408 01:00:00 - 02:00:00 0 0 02:00:00 - 03:00:00 0 0 03:00:00 - 04:00:00 0 0 04:00:00 - 05:00:00 0 0 05:00:00 - 06:00:00 0 0 06:00:00 - 07:00:00 0 0 07:00:00 - 08:00:00 0 0 08:00:00 - 09:00:00 0 0 09:00:00 - 10:00:00 0 0 10:00:00 - 11:00:00 0 0 11:00:00 - 12:00:00 0 0 12:00:00 - 13:00:00 0 0 13:00:00 - 14:00:00 0 0 14:00:00 - 15:00:00 0 0 15:00:00 - 16:00:00 0 0 16:00:00 - 17:00:00 0 0 17:00:00 - 18:00:00 0 0 18:00:00 - 19:00:00 0 0 19:00:00 - 20:00:00 0 0 20:00:00 - 21:00:00 0 0 21:00:00 - 22:00:00 0 0 22:00:00 - 23:00:00 0 0 23:00:00 - 00:00:00 0 0 Warranted Hours Major Street Minor Street Hour Total All Highest Volume Approaches (vph) Approach (vph) 00:00:00 - 01:00:00 2408 408 Federal 2003 4 Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Minor Street Street Name Hwy 93 Rose Crossing Direction NB/SB WB Number of Lane: 2 2 Approch Speed 55 30 Warrant 3 Met? Yes Details Low Population Condition A Met' Notes 0 Hours met (1 required) Minor Approach Time Delay Condition Met? Not Met Minor Approach Volume Condition Met? Met Total Entering Intersection Volume Condition Met? Not Met a 600 s 500 m O a $ 400 m E 300 m _rn 200 N 100 C 0 Condition B Met' Yes Notes 1 Hours met (1 required) Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Community Population Greater Than 10,000 and Major Street Approach Speed Below 40 mph --- ---- ----- - ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----J1 ■ ----- ■ 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) Warrant Curve ■ Warranted • Unwarranted 1 Major, 1 Minor 1 Major, 2+ Minor 2+ Major, 1 Minor 2+ Major, 2+ Minor Federal 2003 5 Hour Major Street Minor Street Total All Highest Volume Approaches (vph) Approach (vph) 0:00 2,408 408 Federal 2003 Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information: Major Street Name Hwy 93 Major Street Direction NB/SB Minor Street Direction No Pedestrian Speed 3.50 NylilN01Ak111E,!►Vil: ki[7 Details: Low Ped Volume Hours Met 0 (4 Required) High Ped Volume Hour Met 0 (1 Required) Westbound Ped Volume Hour Peds Gaps Gaps Peds Peds Peds Gaps Gaps Peds Peds < > > < > > 60? 100? 190? 60? 100? 190? Federal 2003 7 Warrant 5: Schaal Crossing 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Name Hwy 93 Major Street Direction NB/SB WARRANT 5 MET? No Details: Time Period Interval for Students Crossing (min) 0 Number of Students Crossing in Time Period 0 Number of Adequate Gaps in Time Period 0 Other Remedial Measures Attempted? No Adjacent Signal on NB approach? No Distance to signal on NB Approach (ft) - Adjacent Signal on SB approach? No Distance to signal on SB Approach (ft) - Will New Signal Restrict Progressive Traffic? No Federal 2003 8 Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Name Hwy 93 Major Street Direction NB/SB WARRANT 6 MET? Yes Details: Acceptable Adjacent Adjacent Approach Direction & Name Platooning? Coordinating Intersection Signal? Distance SB Approach (Hwy 93) Yes No N/A NB Approach (Hwy 93) Yes No N/A WB Approach (Rose Crossing) No No N/A Unacceptable Platooning? Distance to Closest Signal (At least one approach) (Must be N/A or > 1000) Yes N/A Federal 2003 Warrant 7: Crash Experience 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Name Hwy 93 Major Street Direction NB/SB Minor Street Direction WB WARRANT 7 MET? No Details: Low Population? No Traffic Volume Condition Met? No Major Street Speed Limit 55 1 Hours Met (8 Required) Major Street 85th-% the Speed 0.00 Ped Volume Condition Met? No 0 Hours Met (8 Required) Qualifying Crashes 0 Adequate Alternative Trials? No Traffic Volumes Pedestrian Volumes Major Minor 80% Standard Met? Westbound Ped Volumes A or B Hour Street Street Vehicles Vehicles Condition Condition A B Peds > 80? Peds > 80? 00:00 to 01:00 2,408 0 No No 0 No 0 No 00:15 to 01:15 1,806 0 No No 0 No 0 No 00:30 to 01:30 1,204 0 No No 0 No 0 No 00:45 to 01:45 602 0 No No 0 No 0 No Federal 2003 10 Warrant 8: Roadway (Network 3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Information Major Street Name Hwy 93 Major Street Direction NB/SB Minor Street Direction WB WARRANT 8 MET? (A or B) Yes Details: Growth Rates % (per year) NB SB WB L 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 R 0.00 0.00 0.00 Condition A, Total Entering Volume Condition B, Non -normal Business Day Existing Future Existing Peak Hour 2,816 Highest Hour 0 0 Years 0.00 Second Highest Hour 0 0 Future Peak Hour 2,816 Third Highest Hour 0 0 Warrant 1 in 5 Years? No Fourth Highest Hour 0 0 Warrant 2 in 5 Years? No Fifth Highest Hour 0 0 Warrant 3 in 5 Years? Yes Yearly Growth Rate (%) 0.00 Years 0.00 Condition A Met? Yes Condition B Met? No Federal 2003 11 Rose Crossing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Intersection Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Kalispell, Montana October, 2020 A. BACKGROUND In October 2020 Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) was asked to perform a traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Highway 93 and Rose Crossing in Kalispell, Montana. The Stillwater Bend Subdivision and the Kalispell North Town Center are both planned for imminent construction on the east and west sides of Highway 93 at this intersection. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the intersection currently meets any warrants for signalization and how the construction of the proposed developments in this area will affect the need for signalization. To determine if this intersection meets signalization warrants, a study was performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This study was based on field data collected in September 2020 by ATS, traffic data collected by MDT in 2019, and information from the original traffic impact studies produced for the development projects in 2019. Crash data for the intersection was also obtained from MDT. The MUTCD outlines nine traffic signal warrants. One or more of these warrants should be met before a traffic signal is installed at an intersection. In order to evaluate these signal warrants, it is necessary to assemble 24-hour traffic volume data, pedestrian volumes, and historic crash trends for an intersection. The individual traffic signal warrants include: • Warrant 1 — Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume, • Warrant 2 — Four -Hour Vehicular Volume, • Warrant 3 — Peak Hour Vehicular Volume, • Warrant 4 — Pedestrian Volume, • Warrant 5 — School Crossing, • Warrant 6 — Coordinated Signal System, • Warrant 7 — Crash Experience, • Warrant 8 — Roadway Network, and • Warrant 9 — Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. Historic Traffic Data Abelin Traffic Services obtained historic traffic data for area roadways from MDT which is presented in Table 1. The traffic data history for this area indicates that traffic volumes on this section of Highway 93 have increased at a rate of 3% annually over the last ten years. The current ADT traffic volume on this section of Highway 93 is 23,000 VPD. Abelin Traffic Services 1 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Table 1 - Historic Averaae Dailv Traffic Data Location 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 US 93 N of Reserve 16,610 16,230 15,670 16,970 16,220 16,550 16,961 20,215 19,742 23,165 # 15-7 B-018 Planned Developments The Stillwater Bend Subdivision is proposed for development on 56 acres of land located west of Highway 93 at Rose Crossing. The development would include up to 25 acres of B-2 business property along Highway 93, and 31 acres of RA-2 residential property which would include 855 units. The project would access onto Highway 93 at the existing intersection of Rose Crossing to the north and Nob Hill Road to the south. The development plans to configure the new connection on the west side of Highway 93 at Nob Hill Road as a right -only exit to match the existing configuration on the east side of Highway 93. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. According to the ITE trip generation rates, at full build -out the development would produce 701 AM peak hour trips, 756 PM peak hour trips, and 8,996 daily trips. The near -term projects in this development include a proposed gas station which is planned for construction in 2021. The Kalispell North Town Center is a large commercial and residential development currently under construction along the east side of Highway 93 adjacent to Rose Crossing. The total projected vehicle trip generation from the project could reach 40,000 trips per day a full buildout. The development would address traffic issues on Highway 93 by constructing two new traffic signals at the north and south ends of the project at Rose Crossing and the project's south approach (yet to be constructed), and by restricting turning movements from the project at Nob Hill road (already constructed). A traffic signal is also proposed at the intersection of Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage Road. The Rose Crossing/Highway 93 traffic signal was recommended for installation with the initial phases of this project. The near -term projects in this development planned for construction in 2021 include a 5,000 S.F. paint store, a 9,000 S.F. medical facility, and an additional 10,000 S.F. commercial space. The development also has a large retail space planned for construction in 2022. An additional 96-unit apartment complex is currently under construction at the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Rose Crossing. The project will consist of four buildings and is planned for completion in the fall of 2021. The Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision is also under construction at the north end of Jefferson Boulevard. The project will include 47 single-family residences in 2021 and another 70 townhome/duplex units are planned for completion in 2022. These projects will produce an additional 1,300 trips per day along Rose Crossing. Additional Considerations The MUTCD allows the elimination of some of the right -turn traffic on the minor approach if the approach has a separated right -turn lane and the lane is operating at LOS C or better. At full buildout of the two developments in this area, the LOS at the intersection of Abelin Traffic Services 2 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Highway 93 and Rose Crossing will fall to F. Under current traffic conditions, the LOS at this intersection is C in the AM, Noon, and PM peak hours, but the intersection has little to no reserve capacity. Any additional development in this area will cause the intersection to fall below LOS C. Therefore, the right -turning traffic was not reduced for the traffic signal warrant calculations for the purposes of this study. It should also be noted that Rose Crossing has a significant disparity between westbound traffic (approaching) and eastbound traffic (leaving). Based on the traffic data collected by ATS, nearly twice as much daily traffic flows away from the intersection than flows towards the intersections (900 VPD westbound vs. 1,700 VPD eastbound). A more detailed review of the peak -hour northbound right -turn traffic vs. the westbound left -turn traffic shows that most of this traffic disparity is associated with this specific traffic flow pattern. Only half as much traffic turns left onto Highway 93 as turns right from Highway 93. This is likely due to difficulty that drivers experience with making the left -turn movement onto Highway 93 and the availability of other routes. It is likely that the level of left -turn traffic at this intersection would double if a traffic signal was installed which would allow protected left -turns movements onto Highway 93 from Rose Crossing. It should also be noted that the MUTCD allows lower minimum threshold volumes for signalization at locations were the speed limit is greater the 40 MPH or the community has a population of less than 10,000. The current posted speed limit on this section of Highway 93 is 65 MPH. Therefore, this criterion is met. B. SIGNALIZATION WARRANTS Warrant 1 — Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.02 "The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. It is intended that Warrant I be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant I is satisfied and Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant I is satisfied and the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. Abelin Traffic Services 3 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. " For a roadway with two lanes on the minor street and two lanes on the major approach Table 4C-1 gives the minimum vehicular volumes as 420 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) on the major street and 160 Vehicles Per Hour on the minor approach for Condition A. For Condition B the minimum vehicular volume is 630 vehicles per hour on the major street and 70 vehicles per hour on the minor approach under reduction C (major street exceeds 40 mph). An analysis of the hourly data for Highway 93 indicates that the eighth highest hour has over 1,800 VPH, which is well above the minimum volumes for both Conditions A and B. The current eight -hour approaching traffic on Rose Crossing is 70 VPH. Therefore, this warrant is met. NMI NMI0111iMl:1119 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A —Minimum Vehicular Volume Humber of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles perhour on higher-v Conditton g—Interruption of Contlnuoua Traffic ° May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 4D m ph or in an isolated corn munity vAlh a population of lass than 10,D00 d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 Suet 0102 B—.1 cr 2Il El9 traffic on each approach {total of both approaches} dume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100°n' 80°c'' 70"i; 56°n' 1DORa' SD°o' 70Ra' 1 1 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84 2 or more i 600 460 420 33ii 15t] 120 105 64 2 or more 2 or more f1DD 4B0 420 336 200 160 140 112 1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 16D 140 112 Number Of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehidas par hour on major street (fatal of bath approaches) Vehides per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 1 DO%a BD%t 7D4e° 56%d 10D:4' 80%6 7D%° 1 1 750 BDO 525 420 75 60 53 42 2 or more 1 900 72t] 630 504 75 Ii0 53 42 2 or more 2 or move 900 720 630 504 10D 80 70 5E 1 2 or mare 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 58 Abelin Traffic Services 4 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Warrant 2 — Four -Hour Vehicular Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.03 "The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-I for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. " The data collected by MDT and ATS indicates that the fourth highest hour on this section of Highway 93 has over 1,800 VPD, which is on the far end of the chart for figure 4C-2. Therefore, the minor street approach needs only to meet the minimum volume for the minor street approach (80 VPH). Currently the approach totals on the minor leg of this intersection are 70 VPH in the fourth highest hour which is just below the 80 VPH minimum. Therefore, this warrant is not met. WARRANT NOT MET. Abelin Traffic Services 5 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing 'a gc 440 500 400 MINOR STREET 30o HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 2009 Fclition 300 400 5o0 600 700 S00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET TOTAL DF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR [VPH] 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 300 MINOR STREET HIGHER- 200 VOLUME APPROACH- VPH 100 I 2 OR MORE � � 1 1 LANES & 2 DR MORE LANES 1 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 I 1 LANE & 1 LANE I Approxirr Street V 200 300 400 500 60o 700 Soo 900 10 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:.30 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. late Mi lume Abelin Traffic Services 6 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Warrant 3 — Peak Hour Vehicular Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.04 "The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of I hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same I hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor - street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach; or 5 vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach, and 2. The volume on the same minor -street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher - volume minor -street approach (one direction only) for I hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. " The analysis of the traffic data indicates that the intersection is nearing the peak -hour volume to meet this warrant when under the current traffic conditions (82 VPH vs. 100 VPH limit). The projected traffic volumes are near the curve on Figure 4C-3. Therefore, this warrant is currently not met but will like bet met soon with additional development in this area. However, it should be noted that this warrant is generally used only in special cases as noted in the NWTCD. WARRANT NOT MET. Abelin Traffic Services 7 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing 2009 Ediboi: — Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour soD 500 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES MINOR STREET 400 II 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE HIGHER47�- VOLUME 1 LANE & 1 LANE APPROACH- VPH 200 l 50' 100 1001 400 500 600 700 800 S00 1000 11D0 1200 1300 14vv 1500 1000 170D 1600 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF ROTH APPROACHFS— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note- 160 v p h applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40�MPH ON MAJOR STREET) � I I I Opp 2 OR MORE LANI S & 2 iR MOiE LANES MINOR 20R MORE LANES & 1 LANE STREET aoo f HIGHER- 1 LANE & 1 LANE VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH PM Peak Hour 100 s• 300 400 Soo 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR [VPH] -Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a miner -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume fora minor -street approach with one lane. D—I[Lb-2009 Abelin Traffic Services 8 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.05 "The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C- 5; or B. For I hour (any four consecutive 1 S-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7. " At this time there is little pedestrian activity crossing Highway 93 in this area. The nearest pedestrian crossing is at Reserve Drive one mile to the south. With the construction of the commercial and residential land uses at the Stillwater Bend Subdivision, it is likely that some pedestrians may cross at this location in the future. However, the level of pedestrian use will generally be low and will likely not meet the volume thresholds to meet this warrant. Though this warrant would not be met by volume, a traffic signal would ultimately benefit pedestrians at this location if installed. WARRANT NOT MET. Warrant 5 - School Crossing MUTCD SECTION 4C.06 "The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren " includes elementary through high school students. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy ofgaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size ofgroups ofschool children at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A. 03) and there are a minimum of 20 students during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning Abelin Traffic Services 9 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade - separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 in (3 00ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic- " There are no schools in this area. Therefore, this warrant is not met. WARRANT NOT MET. Warrant 6 — Coordinated Signal System MUTCD SECTION 4C.07 Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. " There are currently three existing traffic signals along Highway 93 one mile to the south starting at Reserve Drive at'/4 mile spacing. These signals provide acceptable platooning, and there is not likely a need for the signal at Rose Crossing to provide additional platooning along this section of Highway 93. Therefore, this warrant is not met. WARRANT NOT MET. Warrant 7 — Crash Experience MUTCD SECTION 4C.08 "The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met: A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash Abelin Traffic Services 10 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-I (see Section 4C. 02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4G1 exists on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume ofpedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. " Data from the Montana Department of Transportation for this intersection indicates seven crashes occurred at this intersection in the last five years. This is well within the normal crash rate for highway intersections. Therefore, this warrant is not met. WARRANT NOT MET. Warrant 8 - Roadway Network MUTCD SECTION 4C.09 "Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. " Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1, 000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1, 000 vehicles per hour for each of any S hours of a nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday). A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. " Highway 93 is a major urban route and Rose Crossing is intended as a future minor arterial route and has over 1,000 vehicles entering per hour for at least 13 hour each day. Based on this data, this warrant is currently met. WARRANT MET. Abelin Traffic Services 11 October, 2020 Signalization Warrant Study Highway 93 & Rose Crossing Warrant 9 — Intersection Near a Grade Crossing MUTCD Section 4C.10 "The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal." Highway 93 has no at -grade railroad crossings in this area. Therefore, this warrant is not met. WARRANT NOT MET. C. CONCLUSTIONS Based on the traffic data collected for this project, it is likely that a traffic signal is currently warranted at the intersection of Rose Crossing and Highway 93 using the 8-hour traffic volume warrant criteria (Warrant 1) and the Roadway Network Criteria (Warrant 8). The intersection is currently operating at LOS C during the peak hours, but the intersection has little to no reserve capacity for future growth. Based on the observed traffic patterns at this location, vehicles are already altering their paths to avoid the difficult left -turn onto Highway 93 at Rose Crossing. The planned developments in this area will require the installation of the traffic signal at this location to provide safe and efficient traffic now onto Highway 93 as described in the traffic impact studies prepared for these projects. The developers should plan for the installation of the traffic signal at Rose Crossing with the next phase of construction of the planned developments in this area in 2021. Abelin Traffic Services 12 October, 2020