Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
H1. Res. 6143, Pioneer Estates Preliminary Plat
CITY OF KALisPELL Development Services Department 201 V Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalisi)ell.com/planning REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: KPP-23-06 — Pioneer Estates Preliminary Plat MEETING DATE: August 7, 2023 BACKGROUND: A request from KLDS Investments, LLC, for major subdivision approval of Pioneer Estates, a 22-lot residential subdivision located in an R-4 (Residential) zone. The subdivision contains 6.39 acres in lots, roads and a utility lot. In addition, the subdivision would provide access to two existing homes. The property is generally located on the south side of Two Mile Drive, west of Greenbriar, and to the east of the Highway 93 Bypass. The subdivision property, including the two existing homes, was purchased by the Montana Department of Transportation as part of the Highway 93 Bypass construction, but a portion was unused and later put up for auction, where it was purchased by the applicant. Subsequently, the two homes were sold to other individuals. The property can be legally described as Tract 3 of Certificate of Survey Number 22255 in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2023, to consider the request. Staff presented staff report KPP-23-06 providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the Council that preliminary plat approval be granted subject to 31 listed conditions. Two public comments were received at the public hearing in addition to comments from the applicant. The comments generally related to availability of water service, traffic, park amenities, and the proposed lift station. The public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KPP-23-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the 31 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 6143, a resolution approving a request from KLDS Investments, LLC, for approval of the preliminary plat for Pioneer Estates, a major subdivision preliminary plat consisting of approximately 6.39 acres with 31 conditions of approval, which can be described as Tract 3 of Certificate of Survey Number 22255 in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 6143 July 11, 2023, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Staff Report Application Materials & Maps Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 6143 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIONEER ESTATES, DESCRIBED AS TRACT 3 OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NUMBER 22255 IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, KLDS Investments, LLC, the owner of the certain real property described above, has petitioned for approval of the Subdivision Plat of said property; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on July 11, 2022 on the proposal and reviewed Subdivision Report #KPP-23-06 issued by the Kalispell Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Pioneer Estates, subj ect to certain conditions and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Kalispell at its regular council meeting of August 7, 2023, reviewed the Kalispell Planning Department Report #KPP-23-06, reviewed the recommendations of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, and found from the Preliminary Plat, and evidence, that the subdivision is in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Findings of Fact contained in Kalispell Planning Department Report #KPP-23-06 are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact of the city council. SECTION 2. That the application of KLDS Investments, LLC, for approval of the Preliminary Plat of Pioneer Estates, Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council. 2. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. 3. The storm water ponds shall be designed in a way that they become a visual interest to the development. Chain link fencing surrounding the retention pond as the dominant feature shall not be allowed without mitigation. The developer shall work closely with the Parks Department and Public Works to develop a design that is both visually appealing and meets the required safety guidelines. 4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the current city standards for design and construction. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Department stating that the drainage plan for the subdivision has been installed as designed and approved. The storm water ponds shall be on utility lots, and access for maintenance of the ponds shall be provided in accordance with city standards. Water and sewer easements through any utility lots, if necessary, shall provide appropriate access in accordance with Standards for Design and Construction. 5. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 6. The developer shall submit any water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. 7. New infrastructure required to serve the subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction. All design work shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This infrastructure may include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. 8. Water and sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction and in compliance with the city's facilities update and extensions of services plans. The water and sewer main extension plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Department stating that the water and sewer mains have been built and tested as designed and approved. 9. The water main shall be looped with a north connection in Two Mile Drive to Greenbriar Drive and a south connection through the proposed utility lot and Greenbriar Park. The location of the south looping connection is expected to parallel the westerly and southerly property lines of Greenbriar Park and replace an existing 12" bend with a 12" tee and valves (MDEQ Circular 1 - 8.2.4). Stub outs shall be provided for the existing homes. 10. The sewer infrastructure will include a lift station, which shall be placed on a separate utility lot dedicated to the City. The sewer force main from the lift station shall connect to sewer gravity main in Greenbriar Drive. The location and maintenance access requirements, as well as the sewer system for the development as a whole, shall be in accordance with the Standards for Design and Construction and approved by the Public Works Department. Stub outs for the existing homes shall be provided. 11. The developer shall submit the street designs for any required improvements to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. Street designs shall meet the city standards for design and construction, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. 12. Two Mile Drive shall be upgraded along the southern portion of the right-of-way to city standards except as it relates to the sidewalk as noted in condition 13. Any improvements, including the location of the approach of the new road, would be subject to review and approval by the Montana Department of Transportation. 13. A path shall be provided from the end of the existing sidewalk just to the east of the subdivision along the northern property boundary of the existing homes and connecting to the bypass path. 14. The access for both the existing homes (Tracts 1 and 2) shall be relocated prior to final plat to the southern portion of Tract 2 within a 30-foot private road and utility easement without any access to Two Mile Drive or to Covered Wagon Trail north of the easement. A note limiting access shall be placed on the final plat. 15. The recommendations in the Geotech report shall be followed. 16. Prior to final plat, a letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell, any private infrastructure has been constructed per city standards, and a proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work. 17. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. Utility easements for city water and sewer shall be provided to allow for the logical extension of utilities from this subdivision to adjoining properties. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be obtained stating that the required easements are being shown on the final plat. 18. 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 19. 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. 20. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of the common areas. 21. 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. 22. A letter shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Director approving a landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials within the landscape boulevards of the streets serving the subdivision, common area, and adjoining rights -of -way. 23. A park plan shall be created and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to final plat. The plan may include a cash -in -lieu payment to be calculated as provided in Section 28.3.22(D) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. 24. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owners' association defaults on their park and open space amenity conditions. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 25. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a stormwater maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owner(s) default on the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 26. Pursuant to Sec 28.3.25 of the subdivision regulations, the final plat shall include a note stating that "The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which specifically benefit this subdivision." 27. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 28. All utilities shall be installed underground and in locations that are approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department in accordance with the Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. 29. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix immediately after development. 30. A sound study shall be submitted prior to any construction on -site showing the specific design for highway sound mitigation for the subdivision and that the design reduces the noise impacts to no more than 60 dBA at any lot line within the subdivision. The design of the noise mitigation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Kalispell Architectural Review Committee prior to construction. Compliance with this requirement may result in a reconfiguration or reduction in the number of lots. 31. All residential units within the subdivision shall have fire sprinkler systems unless the total number of units for the subdivision and the homes using the subdivision for access is limited to 30 or less by (a) including a provision in the covenants limiting construction to single- family only except for four specified lots and (b) providing agreements with the owners of the two existing homes limiting the number of units on those properties, which would need to be verified, reviewed and approved by the City and, if necessary, formalized and recorded. SECTION 3. Upon proper review and filing of the Final Plat of said subdivision in the office of the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder, said premises shall be a subdivision of the City of Kalispell. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023. ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Mark Johnson Mayor KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING July 11, 2023 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission CALL was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham, Doug Kauffman, Joshua Borgardt, Pip Burke, Kevin Aurich, Rory Young, and Tim Stocklin. Kari Barnhart and PJ Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. Keith Haskins represented the Kalispell Public Works Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Aurich moved and Young seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2023, meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC Mary Mitchell — 279 Morning View Dr — Would like direction on who could answer her questions regarding water restrictions and growth. KCU-23-03 — CASA MEXICO A request from Casa Mexico Holdings, LLC, for a conditional use permit for the PARKING LOT construction of a parking lot at 1741 Airport Road to be associated with the Casa Mexico restaurant. The parking lot, which will primarily front 18' Street East, will have approximately 78 parking spaces, primarily to serve the expansion of the existing restaurant into a portion of the building to the south to provide an expanded kitchen and event area. The use as a parking lot is generally a permitted use under the zoning ordinance, but is listed as a conditional use through the Airport Affected Area Ordinance due to its location in the Runway Protection Zone. The property can be described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 20875, located in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-23 -03 . Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KCU-23-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. PUBLIC COMMENT Andy Hyde — 1995 3rd Ave E - Representing the Applicant — Stated he has no objections to the conditions and offered to answer any questions. MOTION — KCU-23-03 Kauffman moved and Stocklin seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-23-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION The board discussed the benefit of additional parking to keep cars from parking on the highway. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of July 11, 2023 Pagel KPP-23-06 — PIONEER ESTATES A request from KLDS Investments, LLC, for major subdivision approval of Pioneer Estates, a 22-lot residential subdivision located in an R-4 (Residential) zone. The subdivision contains 6.39 acres in lots, roads and a utility lot. The property is generally located on the south side of Two Mile Drive, west of Greenbriar, and to the east of the Highway 93 Bypass. The property can be legally described as Tract 3 of Certificate of Survey Number 22255 in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KPP-23-06. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Pioneer Estates be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION The board discussed sidewalk location, water and sewer, and access to the subdivision with Sorensen. Sorensen advised that the sidewalk connecting to the bike path made the most sense since there is no place to put in a sidewalk on Two Mile and that a lift station would be on the south end and water connections would be on the north & south ends. The fire code for this number of lots does not require a second access. PUBLIC COMMENT Terry Charles — 185 Marvins Way —Has concerns about water restrictions and growth. Eric Mulcahy— Sands Surveying - Representing the applicant —Stated that the owners are applying for the subdivision per the current zoning standards and offered to answer any questions. Colleen Sullivan — 130 Greenbriar — Has concerns about mail delivery on Two Mile Dr. since it is already crowded, and increased traffic on Two Mile Drive. She would like to know what the what the park amenities and access would be and what the timeline for the development. She would also like to know if there would another meeting if homes are changed to townhomes. MOTION — KPP-23-06 Young moved and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KPP-23-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Pioneer Estates be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Burke confirmed with Sorensen that the proposed mailbox location is not on Two Mile Drive and that the plat term is 3 years but development could take longer with plat extensions. Kauffman verified with Sorensen that the subdivision is not phased. Graham confirmed with Haskins that the lift station is new and would only serve Pioneer Estates. Haskins also gave the board an overview of lift station requirements including sound attenuation. Burke asked staff for more information on the park amenities. Sorensen stated that park access would be a pedestrian trail, and that the amenities would be defined in the design phase. Borgardt asked staff what the density changes could be. Sorensen advised that the covenants restrict the number of lots to avoid additional access and sprinkling requirements per the current fire code. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 12 Borgardt asked staff to address the concern with water usage and availability. Sorensen advised that the subdivision report states water requirements can be supported. Haskins confirmed that there are no issues with water rights. He also added that there is currently one water source down but there are 2 additional sources and a water tank under construction. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS Sorensen updated the board on the June 13, 2023 agenda items. NEW BUSINESS Sorensen updated the board on the upcoming August 8th, 2023 Planning Board Meeting and provided an overview of the recent legislative updates. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:11PM. Chad Graham President APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kirstin Robinson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of July 11, 2023 Page13 PIONEER ESTATES MAJOR SUBDIVISION - STAFF REPORT #KPP-23-06 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT JULY 11, 2023 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request from KLDS Investments, LLC, for major preliminary plat approval on approximately 6.4 acres. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Board for July 11, 2023, 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 A request from KLDS Investments, LLC, for major subdivision approval of Pioneer Estates, a 22-lot residential subdivision located in an R-4 (Residential) zone. The subdivision contains 6.39 acres in lots, roads and a utility lot. In addition, the subdivision would provide access to two existing homes. The property is generally located on the south side of Two Mile Drive, west of Greenbriar, and to the east of the Highway 93 Bypass. The subdivision property, including the two existing homes, was purchased by the Montana Department of Transportation as part of the Highway 93 Bypass construction, but a portion was unused and later put up for auction, where it was purchased by the applicant. Subsequently, the two homes were sold to other individuals. A: Applicant: KLDS Investments, LLC 3810 Highway 93 S Kalispell, MT 59901 B: Location: The property can be legally described as Tract 3 of Certificate of Survey Number 22255 in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. 1 C: Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is currently vacant, although there are the two existing single-family homes that were part of the original overall property, but now on separately owned tracts, that will remain. The current zoning for the property is city R-4 (Residential). The R-4 zone is "comprised of primarily single-family and duplex dwellings. Development within the district will require all public utilities, and all community facilities. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as suburban residential and urban residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map." Kalispell zoning KALISPELL Pioneer Estates ® _uGe� Fcie Ral�tla� 8 i&SWe,aal Me.b,' twfMD =7- RA- ,till rt:2 Sub- R_7 Pa7c el Rn�aem;ai RA Rzsiderrtinl fete Sources: %,m _ sr I. N Q f45 250 580 8iQ F�d,.A r V MS Rea OLv af KAW9 GIs 6asernaP: Austin B.,6 iW-June 16, 2023 Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.com D. Size: The subject property is approximately 6.39 acres. E: Adjacent Zoning: North: County R-1 East: City R-4 South: City RA-1/R-4; County R-1 West: County R-1 F: Adjacent Land Uses: North: Single-family East: Single-family South: Single-family West: Highway 93 Bypass G: General Land Use Character: The subject property is located in an area that is generally a mix of urban and rural single-family homes along Two Mile Drive, with several multi -family developments just to the east of the property before becoming commercial as Two Mile approaches Meridian Road. While it is adjacent to the bypass, Two Mile Drive does not include an interchange. It is anticipated that the general pattern of development will continue, although the presence of city utilities will likely generate a trend towards more urban residential development rather than larger rural tracts. H: Relation to the Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Urban Residential, which supports the existing R-4 zone. Rezoning the property is not required. 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. City services including sewer, water and streets are in the vicinity and available to the subject property. L• Availability of Public Services and Extension of Services: Water and sewer service are available in the vicinity, and extensions will be necessary to serve the subdivision that would be completed by the developer. The property fronts on Two Mile Drive and a new street will be extended by the developer into and throughout the subdivision. Sewer: City of Kalispell Water: City of Kalispell Refuse: City of Kalispell Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative Gas: NorthWestern Energy Telephone: CenturyTel Schools: School District #5 (Peterson Elementary/Glacier High School) Fire: City of Kalispell Police: City of Kalispell 3 SUBJECT PROPERTY REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE MAJOR PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat contains 22 lots on approximately 6.4 acres in lots, streets and common area. Four of the lots would be designated under the covenants to allow for a second dwelling unit, whether that would be as duplexes, townhomes, or an accessory dwelling unit. It should be noted that the R-4 zoning for the property allows for duplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, but the applicant is limiting their construction in order to meet certain fire code requirements. While the subdivision does not include the two existing single-family homes, their impact on the subdivision design needs to be included in the analysis due to the single access that would include those homes. The applicant has stated that the sale of the homes included agreements which are intended to allow the homes to function appropriately with the subdivision, although those agreements would need to be verified and, if necessary, formalized and recorded. J!r mw �w ay7.°. PRJN +tiARY PEAT �' PIONEER ESTA TES .ra spa suerer DAM A—..rcr a o CfTY OF KAUSPB FLATHEAD COUNTY, MOATAKA ea�:rso- mnuw ,ram aus ., JAW !a met r- r FW Oman nsa m,ars.r� _r. + uJ. Q - -I Fir i c� h.Yfri Jur F n! it Cs, J A. Effects on Health and Safety: Fire: The property would be considered to be at low risk of fire because any building constructed within the subdivision would be built 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 required to be placed in compliance with the requirements of the fire code and approved by the Fire Chief. The total number of units served by a single access is limited to no more than 30 under the fire code unless all of the units have fire sprinkling. The developer intends to limit the number of units to 30 or less by including a provision in the covenants limiting construction to single-family only except for four specified lots. Additionally, the applicant has stated that the sale of the existing homes included agreements limiting the number of units which could be added in order to keep the total number below the threshold. The agreements would need to be verified, reviewed and approved by the City and, if necessary, formalized and recorded, as a condition of approval unless all of the homes are constructed with fire sprinklers. Access: The access for the subdivision would be provided by Two Mile Drive. Due to topography and the bypass overpass, the only location for a connection to Two Mile is along the eastern property line. A single access to the development is allowed provided that it serves 50 or fewer residential lots and the access is less than 1000 feet long. The ends of the streets need to provide a cul-de-sac with the minimum radius provided for in the subdivision regulations and the standards for design and construction. Geology: The overall site is generally flat without any major topographical or geological features limiting development. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical report from Slopeside Engineering dated May 24, 2023. They did not encounter groundwater as part of the investigation, and it is estimated that groundwater depth is 10-20 feet. The report did not indicate any impediments to development of the site, but did include recommendations that should be followed relating to infrastructure and home construction. Flooding: The subject property is shown as being located outside of the 100-year floodplain per the Flood Insurance Rate Map (30029C 1805J, effective date of November 4, 2015). There are no streams or wetlands associated with the property. Hwy sound mitigation: Under Section 28.3.09 of the subdivision regulations, where a subdivision in an "R" or "RA" zone abuts a major arterial such as the bypass, noise mitigation must be incorporated to reduce the noise impacts to 60 decibels at the lot line. When the bypass was designed, the Montana Department of Transportation included some sound mitigation at this site in the form of a berm which is located within the highway right-of-way. The applicant included the MDT sound study in the application. Based on the study and initial testing, it appears that noise impacts are approximately 60- 65 decibels at the building lines. Based on that information, additional highway sound 6 mitigation may be required to reduce the decibels to the appropriate level. Prior to any site development, the applicant will need to prepare additional sound study data and a mitigation plan. The mitigation plan may result in a reconfiguration of the subdivision or loss of lots. Any modification to the existing berm would require MDT approval. The design of the noise mitigation measures should be reviewed and approved by the City of Kalispell Architectural Review Committee prior to construction. B. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: There are no water features which would provide any 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 which shows that the property does not provide important wildlife habitat. It also includes information 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: Surface and groundwater: The subdivision will be served by public water and sewer thereby minimizing any potential impacts to groundwater. The Geotech report indicated that groundwater was estimated to be approximately 10-20 feet deep. Drainage: 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. Final design will be approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to development. The storm water ponds will be required to be on utility lots, and access for maintenance of the ponds needs to be provided in accordance with city standards. Water and sewer easements through any utility lots, if necessary, shall provide appropriate access in accordance with Standards for Design and Construction. Any open storm water facilities should have an elevated aesthetic design to be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works and Parks Departments. A condition of approval requires that a property owners' association be created for the maintenance of the common area which would include the common area drainage easements. In order to help ensure the continued maintenance of the storm water facilities, a note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a stormwater maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owner(s) default on the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. Lastly, the developer is required to submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval. These plans provide for managing storm water on the site and include stabilizing the construction site through an approved revegetation plan after site grading is completed. 7 D. Effects on Local Services: Water: Water to the development will be provided by the City of Kalispell through existing water mains in Greenbriar Drive that will be extended through the new subdivision. The water system serving the subdivision is subject to review and approval by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department under the Standards for Design and Construction. The main shall be looped with a north connection in Two Mile Drive to Greenbriar Drive and a south connection through the proposed utility lot and Greenbriar Park. The location of the south looping connection is expected to parallel the westerly and southerly property lines of Greenbriar Park and replace an existing 12" bend with a 12" tee and valves (MDEQ Circular 1 - 8.2.4). While the existing houses are not required to connect to water, stub outs should be provided. There is adequate capacity within the city's water system to accommodate this subdivision. Any water rights associated with the property will need to be dedicated to the City of Kalispell per Section 28.3.08 of the subdivision regulations. Sewer: Sewer to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell through an existing main in Greenbriar Drive that will be extended through the new subdivision. The new sewer infrastructure will include a lift station, which will need to be placed on a separate utility lot dedicated to the City. The sewer force main from the lift station shall connect to sewer gravity main in Greenbriar Drive. The location and maintenance access requirements, as well as the sewer system for the development as a whole, shall be in accordance with the Standards for Design and Construction and approved by the Public Works Department. As with the water system, the existing houses are not required to connect to sewer, but stub outs should be provided. There is adequate capacity within the city's sewer system to accommodate this subdivision. Access and Roads: The access for the subdivision would be provided by Two Mile Drive, which is an existing public road along the north side of the subdivision. Two Mile is a major collector running perpendicular to the Highway 93 Bypass, although there is not an access onto or off of the bypass with Two Mile extending across a bridge over the bypass. Two Mile should be upgraded along the southern portion of the right-of-way to city standards except as it relates to the sidewalk as discussed below. Any improvements, including the location of the approach of the new road, would be subject to review and approval by the Montana Department of Transportation. The sidewalk currently ends about 50 feet to the east of the property between the access to the subdivision and Greenbriar Drive. Due to the topography with Two Mile rising as it goes to the west to account for the bridge, installation of a i sidewalk would be difficult within the right-of-way where it would typically be. However, there is a bike path within the bypass right-of-way running along the western boundary of the subdivision as well as a path connection across the bridge on the north side of Two Mile. Given the existing conditions, a connection from the end of the existing sidewalk just to the east of the subdivision along the northern property boundary of the existing homes to the bypass path would be appropriate. The connection would better serve the area with the connection to the bypass system with the existing path already providing a connection across the bridge, particularly with the connection to the sidewalk to the east linking to a crosswalk to that path. A Traffic Impact Study ("TIS") by Abelin Traffic Services dated May 2023 was submitted by the applicant. The TIS analyzed the full buildout of the proposed development. The traffic study was prepared using standard techniques to forecast traffic volumes and operations at the approaches and nearby intersections. Under the city Standards for Design and Construction, the development shall maintain or improve the existing level of service for the affected roadways rather than simply maintaining an acceptable level of service. The TIS concluded that there was not a decrease in service and no capacity improvements are required to accommodate this development. The existing driveway serving the existing houses would be too close to the proposed new street under city standards and would create a public safety issue. In order to correct that issue, the access for both the homes (Tracts 1 and 2) will need to be relocated to the southern portion of Tract 2 within a 30-foot private road and utility easement without any access to Covered Wagon Trail north of the easement. The end result would be that there would be no accesses onto Two Mile Drive from the subdivision or the existing homes other than via the new street serving the subdivision (Covered Wagon Trail). Internal to the subdivision, there are two public streets which will both be constructed to the local road standards under the Standards for Design and Construction. Both would include full street profiles including, but not limited to, curb/gutter, landscape boulevard with trees, and a sidewalk. Both streets would include cul-de-sacs that will require diameters as provided in the subdivision regulations and Standards for Design and Construction. Schools: The property is within the boundaries of School District #5 (Peterson Elementary and Glacier High School). On average, it would be anticipated that there would be about 11-15 students (K-12) from the neighborhood 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. 9 Additionally, the road network to the subdivision provides adequate access for fire protection. As part of subdivision review, fire protection, including fire flow and hydrant location, will be reviewed. Fire station 61 is located approximately 1.6 miles away providing good response time. The total number of units served by a single access is limited to no more than 30 under the fire code unless all of the units have fire sprinkling as noted above under effects on health and safety. Parks and Recreation: Subdivision regulations require a minimum of 0.03 acres of parkland per dwelling unit, or 0.78 acres (26 units) for the area subject to this plat (or the equivalent value in land with improvements) . With limited space on site and an existing city park adjacent to the southeastern corner of the subdivision in Greenbriar, the applicant plans to provide a pedestrian path connection to the park and make a cash -in - lieu payment for the remaining parkland obligation. Calculation of the amount is governed by Section 28.3.22 (D) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. It is imperative that any park area or improvements be well maintained for the visual aspects of the project and the functionality of the parks, open space, and storm drainage areas. The proposal includes covenants and a management plan providing for maintenance of the shared facilities. However, staff recommends that, in addition, 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. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by the City of Kalispell. There is sufficient capacity within the landfill to accommodate this 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 one mile from the site. E. Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: According to the Kalispell Growth Policy Resources and Analysis Section, "Important Farmlands" map, the property may include prime farmland if irrigated, although development of the surrounding area, including both residential development and the highway bypass, have likely somewhat diminished the value of the land for agricultural purposes. 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. 10 The subject property is entirely within the annexation policy boundary and was previously annexed. By allowing higher density development within the city's growth policy area, it can reasonably be expected that more farmlands could be conserved because of the availability of residential and commercial lots within the Kalispell Growth Policy boundary, thereby limiting sprawl/leapfrog development. F. Relation to the Kalispell Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Urban Residential, which supports the existing R-4 zone. Rezoning the property is not required. 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. City services including sewer, water and streets are in the vicinity and available to the subject property. G. Compliance with Zoning: The request complies with the provisions of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance and the R-4 (Residential) zone. H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This request complies with provisions of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Pioneer Estates be approved subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council. 2. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. 3. The storm water ponds shall be designed in a way that they become a visual interest to the development. Chain link fencing surrounding the retention pond as the dominant feature shall not be allowed without mitigation. The developer shall work closely with the Parks Department and Public Works to develop a design that is both visually appealing and meets the required safety guidelines. 11 4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the current city standards for design and construction. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Department stating that the drainage plan for the subdivision has been installed as designed and approved. The storm water ponds shall be on utility lots, and access for maintenance of the ponds shall be provided in accordance with city standards. Water and sewer easements through any utility lots, if necessary, shall provide appropriate access in accordance with Standards for Design and Construction. 5. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 6. The developer shall submit any water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. 7. New infrastructure required to serve the subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction. All design work shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This infrastructure may include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. 8. Water and sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction and in compliance with the city's facilities update and extensions of services plans. The water and sewer main extension plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Department stating that the water and sewer mains have been built and tested as designed and approved. 9. The water main shall be looped with a north connection in Two Mile Drive to Greenbriar Drive and a south connection through the proposed utility lot and Greenbriar Park. The location of the south looping connection is expected to parallel the westerly and southerly property lines of Greenbriar Park and replace an existing 12" bend with a 12" tee and valves (MDEQ Circular 1 - 8.2.4). Stub outs shall be provided for the existing homes. 10. The sewer infrastructure will include a lift station, which shall be placed on a separate utility lot dedicated to the City. The sewer force main from the lift station shall connect to sewer gravity main in Greenbriar Drive. The location and maintenance access requirements, as well as the sewer system for the development as a whole, shall be in accordance with the Standards for Design and Construction and approved by the Public Works Department. Stub outs for the existing homes shall be provided. 12 11. The developer shall submit the street designs for any required improvements to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. Street designs shall meet the city standards for design and construction, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. 12. Two Mile Drive shall be upgraded along the southern portion of the right-of-way to city standards except as it relates to the sidewalk as noted in condition 13. Any improvements, including the location of the approach of the new road, would be subject to review and approval by the Montana Department of Transportation. 13. A path shall be provided from the end of the existing sidewalk just to the east of the subdivision along the northern property boundary of the existing homes and connecting to the bypass path. 14. The access for both the existing homes (Tracts 1 and 2) shall be relocated prior to final plat to the southern portion of Tract 2 within a 30-foot private road and utility easement without any access to Two Mile Drive or to Covered Wagon Trail north of the easement. A note limiting access shall be placed on the final plat. 15. The recommendations in the Geotech report shall be followed. 16. Prior to final plat, a letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell, any private infrastructure has been constructed per city standards, and a proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work. 17. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. Utility easements for city water and sewer shall be provided to allow for the logical extension of utilities from this subdivision to adjoining properties. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be obtained stating that the required easements are being shown on the final plat. 18. 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 19. 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, 13 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. 20. A homeowner's association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of the common areas. 21. 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. 22. A letter shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Director approving a landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials within the landscape boulevards of the streets serving the subdivision, common area, and adjoining rights -of -way. 23. A park plan shall be created and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to final plat. The plan may include a cash -in -lieu payment to be calculated as provided in Section 28.3.22 (D) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. 24. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owners' association defaults on their park and open space amenity conditions. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 25. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a stormwater maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owner(s) default on the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 26. Pursuant to Sec 28.3.25 of the subdivision regulations, the final plat shall include a note stating that "The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which specifically benefit this subdivision. " 27. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 28. All utilities shall be installed underground and in locations that are approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department in accordance with the Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. 29. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix immediately after development. 14 30. A sound study shall be submitted prior to any construction on -site showing the specific design for highway sound mitigation for the subdivision and that the design reduces the noise impacts to no more than 60 dBA at any lot line within the subdivision. The design of the noise mitigation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Kalispell Architectural Review Committee prior to construction. Compliance with this requirement may result in a reconfiguration or reduction in the number of lots. 31. All residential units within the subdivision shall have fire sprinkler systems unless the total number of units for the subdivision and the homes using the subdivision for access is limited to 30 or less by (a) including a provision in the covenants limiting construction to single-family only except for four specified lots and (b) providing agreements with the owners of the two existing homes limiting the number of units on those properties, which would need to be verified, reviewed and approved by the City and, if necessary, formalized and recorded. 15 Development Services ci•ry Department Kalispell, MT 59901 1K:A1L11SPE1L11, 201 1st Avenue East Phone (406) 758-7940 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Email: planningCQkalispell.com Website: www.kalispell.com Project Name Pioneer Estates Property Address Two Mile Dr NAME OF APPLICANT Doug Siderius Applicant Phone (406) 253-6891 Applicant Address 737 Egan Road City, State, Zip Kalispell, MT 59901 Applicant Email Address dougsider@hotmail.com If not current owner, please attach a letter from the current owner authorizing the applicant to proceed with the application. OWNER OF RECORD KLDS Investments, LLC Owner Phone Owner Address 3810 HWY 93 S City, State, Zip Kalispell, MT 59901 Owner Email Address CONSULTANT (ARCH ITECTIENGINEER) Carver Engineering Phone (406)257-6202 Address 1995 3rd Ave East City, State, Zip Kalispell, MT 59901 Email Address kevin@carvereng.com POINT OF CONTACT FOR REVIEW COMMENTS Sands Surveying, Inc attn: Eric Mulcahy Phone 755-6481 Address 2 Village Loop City, State, Zip Kalispell, MT 59901 Email Address eric@sandssurveing.com List ALL owners (any individual or other entity with an ownership interest in the property): Legal Description (please provide a full legal description for the property and attach a copy of the most recent deed): Tract 3 of COS 22255 in Sections 12, T 28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County Please initial here indicating that you have verified the description with the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder and that the description provided is in a form acceptable to record at their office. C'i'l"Y Clf� K,kLISPELL Development Services Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone (406) 755-7940 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: Number of lots or rental spaces 22 Total Acreage in subdivision 6.39 Total Acreage in lots 4.04 ac Minimum size of lots or spaces 6605 sf Total Acreage in streets or roads 1.96 ac Maximum size of lots or spaces 12,525 sf Total acreage in parks, open spaces and/or common spaces 16,631 sf PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTS/SPACES: Single Family 18 Townhouse 4 Mobile home/RV Park Commercial/Industrial Multi -family Other APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT: R-4 ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS: $30,000/ac PROPOSED EROSION/SEDIMENTCONTROL: AS required ARE ANY SUBDIVISION VARIANCES REQUESTED? No (YES/NO) If yes please complete a separate subdivision variance application APPLICATION PROCESS (application must be received and accepted by the Kalispell Planning Department 35 days prior to the Planning Board hearing) A pre -application meeting with the planning staff is required. 1. Completed preliminary plat application 2. Copy of pre -application meeting form and any required submittals listed on the form 3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations) 4. One reduced size copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed 11"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 an 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. re Pioneer Estates Preliminary Plat Application Supplements For: Doug Siderius Application Fee - $7,500.00 Appendix AM.: Supplements to Preliminary Plat • A vicinity Map is included on the face of the preliminary plat. • Included with this application is a Grant Deed showing KLDS Investments LLC as owner. A complete title report will be submitted with the final plat showing ownership, mortgages, liens, etc. • A draft set of CC&R's for Pioneer Estates is included with the application package. The CC&R's address the maintenance of drainage system. From a taxing standpoint, each lot owner will own 1/22nd of the common area and be responsible for 1/22nd of the property taxes on the common elements. • The Streets (Covered Wagon Trail and Sodbuster Court) will be dedicated to the City of Kalispell. • The City requires 0.03 acres of parkland per lot in urban scale developments. The 22 lots proposed requires a dedication of 0.66 acres. The developer is proposing cash -in -lieu of parkland, minus the cash value of the pedestrian path connecting the Cul-de-sac at the end of Covered Agon Trail with the City Park to the east in Greenbrier. • Preliminary sewer, water and stormwater plans are provided with the application. • The subdivision will be developed in a single phase however the homes will be constructed over a period of time. • The proposed subdivision is a planned expansion of the City as there are urban scale developments along the eastern boundaries project. The Highway 93 Bypass is the western boundary. • Per 76-3-616 of MCA and Appendix A.II.0 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, -we are requesting an exemption from the Environmental Assessment/Impact Criteria Report as the subdivision application meets the following: a) The proposed subdivision is entirely within the city limits of Kalispell which has a Growth Policy adopted by the City Council and is also compliant with State Statute. b) The proposed subdivision is zoned by the City of Kalispell and the zoning complies with the City's Growth Policy. c) The proposed subdivision has direct access to City sewer and water. Sewer and water mains are adjacent to the property in Two Mile Drive. Stormwater will be addressed on -site. 1 Pioneer Estates Preliminary Plat Application Also, as this development is adjacent to urban scale subdivisions there are no impacts to agriculture, agricultural water user systems, wildlife, or sensitive wildlife habitat. • The MTOT installed a tall berm between the Highway and the subject property when the by-pass was constructed. The MDOT's initial Traffic Noise Study indicated that mitigation was needed along this section of Highway however the study does not indicate that the berm completely mitigates the noise. Hand held noise readings on the property indicate a reading of 60 to 65 dBA at the building line. Chapter 23.3.09 states noise mitigation is required when noise exceeds 60dBA and mitigation can include increased setbacks, earth berms and fences. Included in this application are a series of photo's showing the berm between the highway and the Pioneer Estates property along with a series of GIS measurements indicating that the Pioneer Estates property is 166 to 383 feet from the edge of pavement on the bypass. With the standard 10-foot rear yard setback, this distance between house and highway pavement increases to 176 to 393 feet depending on location. 2 Pioneer Estates Preliminary Plat Application "I1111111ll11l11111111111111111111111111ll11llll]111111111hill111111111111111lull111l Pa�eal1oyi12�2—� Rebble Pierson, Flathead County MT by Sh1 s/s/2a221:5 PM4 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO- KLDS luvestments, LLC 3810Rwy935. Kafte% MT 59901 GRANT DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Kevin Linmde and Slderi4s Constmetion LLP, as tenants in Common, Grantor(s), do(es) hereby grant; convey and bargain, and sell to IaDS Investments, LLC Grantde(s), the following described premises in Flathead County, Montana, to vdi: Legal Description: ® Tract 1, shown on Certificate of Survey 21293, being situoted In the NE114SEV4 of Section 12, Township 28N, F^e 2 W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana containing an area of 9.393 acres, mare or less. N SUBJECTTO all rights of ingress and egress over and across the limited amass control line as shown on Certificate of Surrey 21293, as effected through the access control Resolution #201000003450 for highway projects Nil-NCPD-MT-PLH-TCSP 5.3(60)109 & MR-NH-NCPD U) 15(76) approved by the Transportation Cornmissbn, Tiled with the Clerk and Recorders mice f of Flathead County, Montana. to ; SUBJECT TO any easements or utilities apparent and/or of record. OR Granter grants the right of reasonable access to and from the adjacent property of the Grantor. It is expressly Intended and agreed that these reservations, burdens, and restrictions shall run with the land and shall forever bind the Grantees, their successors, and assigns. d I i�V1Tl`1ES5 1i'liE1tEOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the"day of v .2022. _ f Kevin Lin t State Of Montana County of Flathead This inSltt wz Kevin Liao e My Comtnisst`on (SEAL) State of Montana County of Flathead (� INS' t Was artto% Douglas Vedus, President at My Cor (SEAL) IIII1111111111111111111111111111111INIII111111111111111111111111111 Fee$,6 00 515/2022 1.25 PH one. , 22mby uction, LLP. Y K VV0OD J �a�P� o NOTARY PUBLIC for the State of Montana 9OF9��p� Residlny at Kaiiap.11, Montana My Commission Expires Jane 16, 2022 5 N � mm I RI 4` R 4 �mn n ° o' °� 9m H� m� 8 a ao 1 0.4 �� x� -o o° 0po f yo 2 _ a myom F `�rd � �° �° W � � m44j uWWW�W�n• . � �� � � � � u I P�• o : o o .. � � � N a � o Y^ J"' �� � '� '� �� � �1 � �9 0 • o `� o `� m cwi � i w� �� � e F� m i-9 1 2 A.3 ar'€.. � 9 €Es°.a' - �' c1 aAa°� amt Rmam a.'°.e cb9. ai51., o4 jig �Bg At% g- :� yc Sos� ax��~�I�e M, �ae�gabo�'�^8^e ge a„a s"use adbmk�S 2 Ym $' m.. .�i-. a° ds ;... o 9 '°m O�� T' ES 9 0 Ss°� 13 � " � �w �Re � �$8 �m��"a �° 5 � 4� o m5 0 a 3 a 8gE -0mi C"kw�" ts ��� S�S � Fz a°�a uE3 Fa «99 p c&. BaE S°�$E °d 3-m�°E94oE4^9 -04$5 _ use -AP �, Eg gm m a 3'w �m �q o�a�tlm�aaa �.m��$g �_�ggqqqq�gg r��� 058�2 �4M5 a aSS 3 ItHil ` o I mm ® O O O O 7@15T;TIID Ag .av �s�° ^ @ E � 6d,ss•arar r.erzroos `r ' ,8S asa 1Lerzaoos 'saN a �.� (g),gz�erzr r o m a2 pee 3 S6Z2 'S'0 J -.r sP¢riesg jo scrag N, O m BE 4 2 f m +°ji C'. �"t I8'9rZ xJJ10S �08 i N dmAanc9 AID ob cq sty oa+sr.xTN �„e� F w' �� On ti Vt 1-4 b }. \aptp ti <1 p 'y m' `q umi �Anoe Al Y i 9k'sc 101.07. ° of V h CA,LI'Z5+B6 poi ss iy t dl� (d).08'3S! ml 53, 60"i� A8'07i/ 9:10'�N) of ••cRNA / y Asergg, m ° C YQ� Oq ro y W m �i .Zirssrax �Jm`° Pt 5 q 93 99e°ssl>�� 9 j en m n q w I lm I" � V.S• G�A dtiD 15Ci � N8'N� m; B k'c �� c q�� a m -. U1 b q U rz s �aalgaee� $ `°i'9gaaidv DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF Pioneer Estates THE UNDERSIGNED, KLDS Investments, a Limited Liability Company (herein known as the "Developer") of 3810 Highway 93 S., Columbia Falls, MT 59912, hereby encumbers and restricts the real property situated in Flathead County, Montana, known as Lots 1 - 22 of Pioneer Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded in the records of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Flathead, State of Montana (the "Plat") with this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Pioneer Estates (referred to herein as the "Declaration") as set forth below, and declares that the real property shall at all times be owned, held, used and occupied subject to the provisions contained in this Declaration and to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained herein from and after the date this document is recorded with the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder's office. The property shall not be used, nor shall any activities be conducted on it in violation of this Declaration. ARTICLE I Purpose Section 1.1 Purposes. The purposes of this Declaration are to ensure that Pioneer Estates Subdivision maintains park/utility/drainage areas within the subdivision along with any stormwater drainage systems within the common area (Park). The Declaration also ensures the use of each lot within the subdivision. ARTICLE II Common Properties Section 2.1 Park Properties. Common Properties means the property, which is subject to this Declaration, but excluding the individual lots within the property. The utility/drainage is labeled on the Pioneer Estates Final Plat as utility lot. The utility properties shall include any common areas that are shown on the Plat of Pioneer Estates, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. Section 2.2 Maintenance of Park Properties. The Homeowners Association shall maintain the utility areas in attractive state with mowing and weed management. . Section 2.3 Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance. The stormwater drainage systems located within the utility areas shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association as prescribed in the Pioneer Estates Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance Plan and found in Exhibit 'A' of this document and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2.4 Easement Over All Common Properties. The owners shall have an easement for use and enjoyment of all of the Common Properties, subject to such rules and regulations as the Homeowners Association may develop from time to time, and also subject to the rights reserved to Developer. Access to the utility are is from the City Street shown on the Plat of Pioneer Estates. Section 2.5 Property Taxes. It is acknowledged that, for property tax purposes, Flathead County and the State of Montana may allocate to each lot a fractional, proportional portion of the value Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 1 attributable to the Common Properties. By accepting a deed to a lot the owner agrees to this mechanism for property taxation and agrees to pay a proportional share (as allocated by Flathead County and the State of Montana) of the taxes attributable to the value of the Common Properties, while at the same time allowing the Homeowners Association to administer and control the Common Properties. Section 2.6 Insurance on Park Area. The Homeowners Association shall maintain the following types of insurance: property insurance, liability and comprehensive fidelity to the extent that such insurance is reasonable and available, considering the availability, cost and risk coverage provided by such insurance, and the cost of such coverage shall be included in the budget and shall be paid by the Homeowners Association as a common expense. ARTICLE III Use of Lots Section 3.1 Lot use. Each lot is subject to the land use restriction found in Kalispell zoning regulations. However, Lots 1 — 15 and Lots 18 — 20 shall be used for a single family home only and no second units or accessory dwelling units will be allowed. Lots 16, 17, 21, and 21 may have a single family home, a duplex, a two unit townhome, or an accessory dwelling unit for a total of two units on each lot ARTICLE IV Homeowners Association Section 4.1 Membership in the Association. The members of the Homeowners Association shall consist of the owners of each lot of the Subdivision. Each owner covenants and agrees that he/she will automatically be and will remain a member of the "Pioneer Estates Homeowners Association Inc. (known as the "Association") so long as the property owner retains any ownership interest in any lot located within this Subdivision. By accepting the conveyance of the property, the owner binds himself to abide by this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Association, and the reasonable rules and regulations of the Association, which may be adopted by the Board of Directors from time to time. Upon sale of a lot, the membership associated with that lot shall be deemed automatically transferred from the former lot owner to the purchaser of such lot. Such transfer shall not relieve the former lot owner of any obligations incurred by such former lot owner prior to the transfer. For the purposes of membership in the Association, the purchaser under any contract for deed notice of which is recorded in the real estate records of Flathead County, Montana, shall be considered the owner. Section 4.2 Membership Dues. Membership dues for the Homeowners Association are estimated at $100.00 per calendar year, (said dues are an estimate and shall be adjusted as needed by the Homeowners Association). Section 4.3 Voting. The Owner(s) of each lot shall be entitled to a single vote in the Association for each lot owned, except that the Developer shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each lot owned by the Developer. When more than one person holds an interest in any lot, all such persons shall be members of the Association. The vote for such lot shall be exercised as they determine, but in no event shall more than one (1) vote be cast with respect to any lot; except the Developer may cast three (3) votes for each lot it holds. Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 2 Section 4.4 Bylaws. The bylaws of the Association shall govern the conduct of meetings of the members of the Association, the Board of Directors and other aspects of the operation of the Association not addressed in this Declaration. Section 4.5 Management During Period of Developer Control. The "Period of Developer Control" shall mean the period beginning on the date this Declaration is first recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, and ending on the earlier of: (a) the date which is 10 years later or (b) the date on which the Developer has sold 80% of the lots within Pioneer Estates Subdivision and the Developer has notified the Association in writing that the Developer has determined that no additional property shall be added to the Subdivision. During the Period of Developer Control, Developer may appoint, remove and replace from time to time any or all of the Directors and Officers of the Association. Each member of the Association gives the Developer an irrevocable proxy for this purpose. If Developer so elects, Developer may from time to time relinquish, either on a temporary or permanent basis, the right to appoint all or a portion of the Directors and Officers of the Association; provided that any such relinquishment shall be expressed in writing to the Association. The Period of Developer Control may be reinstated or extended by agreement between Developer and the Association upon such terms and conditions as the parties agree. After the termination of the Period of Developer Control, the Developer, if still an owner of any lots in the Subdivision, will continue to have all the rights ordinarily given to owners under this Declaration. Section 4.6 Assessments. Each property owner agrees to pay to the Association such annual dues and assessments as the Board of Directors shall determine. Such dues and assessments may include amounts for operation of the Association, payment of insurance on Common Properties, Common Properties maintenance, utilities, snow removal, and specifically hiring of Stormwater Drainage Maintenance System, a fund for acquisition or replacement of capital improvements, legal and accounting fees, reasonable reserves and any and all other matters determined to be appropriate by the Association for the benefit of the owners and approved or assessed in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures of the Association. The Association dues and assessments shall be the same for each lot of the Subdivision. Section 4.7 Developer's Responsibility for Assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer, although a member of the Association, shall not be responsible at any time for payment of the Assessments with respect to lots owned by the Developer. The foregoing shall include Association dues and assessments, amounts assessed, levied or charged with respect to the water system, and any other amounts charged, levied or assessed any Subdivision lot owner with respect to ownership of property within the Subdivision, except that Developer shall pay its pro -rated share of property taxes assessed against Common Properties within the Subdivision. Developer's share of the property taxes shall be calculated based on the number of lots owned by Developer as of the date each property tax payment is payable. Also, the Developer shall at all times pay all expenses of maintaining the lots that it owns, including any improvements located thereon. For lots that are sold by Developer during a year, the assessments for that year shall be pro -rated and paid by the purchaser at closing. Section 4.8 Collection of Assessments. Assessments shall be the personal responsibility of the owners of each lot. In addition, assessments shall be a lien on each lot. Failure to pay assessments will result in a lien statement being filed by the Board of Directors, which shall describe the lot, state the amount of the unpaid assessment and the date of such assessment. If any assessment is not paid when due, the assessment shall accrue interest at fifteen percent (15%) per annum until paid (or such other rate as the Board of Directors may establish from time to time). A lot owner whose lot is subject to lien must pay the assessment, interest, and costs for preparation of the Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 3 lien and lien release, and all recording fees before the lien is released. The Association is empowered to initiate any legal action to enforce payment of any past -due assessments, dues, or fees including an action to foreclose any lien on a Subdivision Lot. This lien may also be foreclosed in the manner of foreclosure for mortgages. In the event of litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The voting rights of an owner whose assessments are delinquent shall be suspended during the period of delinquency. Section 4.9 Priority of Lien for Assessment. The lien of the assessments will be superior to and prior to any homestead exemption provided now or in the future by the laws of the State of Montana, and to all other liens and encumbrances except the following: a. Liens and encumbrances recorded before the date of the recording of this Declaration. b. Liens for property taxes and other governmental assessments or charges made superior by statute. The lien for all sums unpaid on a First Mortgage, as defined below. A "First Mortgage" is a mortgage, deed of trust, trust indenture, contract for deed, or other similar financial encumbrance granted by an Owner to secure a debt, (1) which is recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, before the date of filing of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments, (2) which encumbers a lot, and (3) which is first in priority among all such mortgages, deeds of trust, trust indentures or other similar financial encumbrances. There can only be one First Mortgage with respect to a lot. Any First Mortgagee who acquired title to a lot by virtue of foreclosing the First Mortgage or by virtue of a deed or assignment in lieu of such a foreclosure, or any purchase at a foreclosure sale of the First Mortgage, will take the lot free of any claims for unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees against the lot which accrue prior to the time such First Mortgagee or purchaser acquires title to the lot. All other persons who hold or who may in the future hold a lien or encumbrance of any type not described in subsection a., b. or c., will be deemed to consent that their lien or encumbrance will be subordinate to the Association's future liens for assessments, interest, late charges, costs, expenses and attorney's fees, as provided in this Article, whether or not such consent is specifically set forth in the instrument creating any such lien or encumbrance. Section 4.10 Protection of First Mortgage. No violation or breach of, or failure to comply with, any provision contained in this Declaration and no action to enforce any such provision shall affect defeat, render invalid or impair the lien of any First Mortgage on any property taken in good faith and for value and perfected by recording in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, prior to the time of recording in said office of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments. No violation, breach, failure to comply or action to enforce this Declaration shall affect, defeat, render invalid or impair the title or interest of the holder of any First Mortgage or result in any liability, personal or otherwise, of any such holder or purchaser. Any purchaser upon foreclosure shall, however, take subject to his Declaration. Section 4.11 Statement of Status of Assessments. On written request, the Association will furnish to an owner or his designee or to any mortgagee a statement setting forth the amount of unpaid assessments then levied against the lot in which the owner, designee or mortgagee has an interest. The information contained in such statement, when signed by an officer, director or agent of the Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 4 Association, will be conclusive upon the Association, the Board of Directors, and every owner as to the person or persons to whom such statement is issued and who rely on it in good faith. Section 4.12 Liability. Neither the Developer, the Association, Design Review Board, nor their respective members, directors, employees nor agents shall be responsible for any actions taken by any of the lot owners. Article IV Duration and Amendment Section 5.1 Duration of Declaration. The provisions of this Declaration are intended to be easements and covenants running with the land, and are intended to be perpetual, except as amended or terminated as provided below. Section 5.2 Amendment after Period of Developer Control. After the Period of Developer Control, this Declaration may be amended or repealed as provided in this Section. Any amendment shall require the consent of the owners of sixty percent (60%) of the lots. Such consent may be evidenced by written consent or by vote at a regular or special meeting of the members of the Homeowner's Association, or by a combination of written consents and votes. If such consent is received, the Association shall then record in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document stating the action taken, together with a sworn statement certifying that the required consent was received. Section 5.3 Unilateral Amendment By Developer. At any time before or after the Period of Developer Control, so long as Developer owns a lot, Developer may unilaterally amend this Declaration (1) if such amendment is solely to comply with applicable law or correct a technical or typographical error, (2) if such amendment does not adversely alter any substantial rights of any owner or mortgagee, or (3) in order to meet the guidelines or regulations of a lender or insurer including, but not limited to, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration or any similar agency. Such amendments shall not require approval of any Owners. Article X General Provisions Section 6.1 Effect of Provisions of Declaration. Each provision contained in this Declaration, and any agreement, promise, covenant, and undertaking to comply with each provision contained in this Declaration, and any necessary exception or reservation or grant of title, estate, right or interest to effectuate any provision contained in this Declaration: (a) shall be deemed incorporated in each deed or other instrument by which any right, title or interest in any real property within the Subdivision is granted, devised or conveyed, whether or not set forth or referred to in such deed or other instrument; (b) shall, by virtue of acceptance of any right, title or interest in any real property within the Subdivision by an owner of the Association, be deemed accepted, ratified, adopted and declared as a personal covenant of such owner or the Association, as the case may be, and, as a personal covenant, shall be binding on such owner or the Association and such owner's or Association's respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns; (c) shall be deemed an equitable servitude, running, in each case, as a burden with and upon the title to each parcel of real property within the Subdivision; and (d) shall be deemed a covenant, obligation and restriction secured by a lien binding, burdening and encumbering the title to each parcel of real property within the Subdivision. Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 5 Section 6.2 Enforcement and Remedies. Each provision contained in this Declaration shall be enforceable by the Association, by the Developer or by any owner who has first made written demand on the Association to enforce such provision and (30) days have lapsed without appropriate action having been taken by the Association. Any enforcement action may be by a proceeding for such relief as may be provided at law or in equity, including but not limited to a temporary or permanent injunction and/or a suit or action to recover damages. Such action may be brought against any person(s) violating or threatening to violate a provision of this Declaration. None of the remedies, which are stated in this Declaration, are intended to be exclusive, and all parties shall have all such remedies as may be provided by law. Section 6.3 Limited Liability. Neither the Developer, the Association, or, their respective members, officers, directors, employees or agents shall be liable to any part for any action or for any failure to act with respect to any matter if the action taken or failure to act was in good faith and without malice. Section 6.4 Successors and Assigns. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions contained in this Declaration shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Developer, the Association, and each owner and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Developer may assign some or all of its rights under this Declaration to a third party by a written instrument specifically referring to such rights recorded in the records of Flathead County, Montana. Such instrument may specify the extent and portion of the rights or interests as a Developer, which are being assigned in which case the initial Developer shall retain all other rights of Developer. Section 6.5 Severability. Invalidity or unenforceability of any provision contained in this Declaration in whole or in part shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Declaration. Section 6.6 Captions. The captions and headings in this instrument are for convenience only and shall not be considered in construing any provision of this Declaration. Section 6.7 Construction. When necessary for proper construction, the masculine of any word used in any provisions contained in this Declaration shall include the feminine or neuter gender, and the singular the plural, and vice versa. Section 6.8 No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision contained in this Declaration on any one or more occasions shall not operate as a waiver of any such provision or of any other provision of this Declaration. Section 6.9 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a dispute arising under any provision contained in this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable cost and attorneys' fees incurred. Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 6 DATED this day of , 20 KLDS Investments LLC. STATE OF MONTANA :ss County of Flathead ) On this day of , 20_ before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State aforesaid, personally appeared , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person executed the same in such person's authorized representative capacity on behalf of NDI, Inc., the entity that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such entity executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for the State of Montana Print or type name Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Pioneer Estates Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance Plan Pioneer Estates Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Page 8 • traffic services Prepared For: Sands Surveying, Inc 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 May 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana 130 South Howie Street Helena, Montana 59601 406-459-1443 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana Table of Contents A. Executive Summary...................................................................................... I B. Project Description........................................................................................I C. Existing Conditions........................................................................................ I Adjacent Roadways.............................................................................. I TrafficCounts........................................................................................3 HistoricData..........................................................................................3 Planned Road Improvements................................................................4 Levelof Service.....................................................................................4 AreaCrash Data...................................................................................4 D. Proposed Development..............................................................................5 E. Trip Generation and Assignment................................................................5 F. Trip Distribution..........................................................................................7 G. Traffic Impacts Outside of the Development...............................................8 H. Impact Summary & Recommendations......................................................9 List of Figures Figure I — Proposed Development Site...................................................................2 Figure 2 — Proposed Development..........................................................................6 Figure3 — Trip Distribution...................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table I — Historic Average Daily Traffic Data..........................................................4 Table 2 — 2023 Level of Service Summary..............................................................5 Table 3 — Trip Generation Rates............................................................................. 7 Table 4 — Projected Level of Service With Development.........................................8 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pioneer Estates development is a 6.4-acre-22 lot residential project located south of Two Mile Drive and east of the US 93, Kalispell Bypass. Upon completion, the project would produce up to 229 new daily vehicle trips. As proposed, the Pioneer Estates development would not create any new roadway capacity problems in this area. Overall, Pioneer Estates will account for a 1 to 6 percent increase in traffic volumes on the surrounding road network. All roadways and intersections in this area will function at LOS B or better with the planned project. No maj or traffic volume increases are expected in this area through 2040. No mitigation measures are recommended at this time with the development of the Pioneer Estates. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This document studies the possible effects on the surrounding road system from a proposed residential development located in the NE 1/4, SW 1/4 of section 12; T28N, R22W; south of Two Mile Drive and along the eastern side of the US 93 Kalispell Bypass. The document provides information regarding possible traffic impacts in the area and identifies traffic mitigation efforts that the development may require. The development would include up to 18 residential lots and 4 townhouse parcels accessing Two Mile Drive. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed development property currently consists of a 6.4-acre parcel of agricultural land located south to Two Mile Drive and adjacent to the Kalispell Bypass. To the east is an established residential subdivision. The surrounding area is comprised of a mix of residential areas and larger agricultural parcels to the north. Two existing residential homes are located north and west of the proposed development property. See Figure 1 for a location map of the proposed development. Adjacent Roadways Two Mile Drive is a two-lane east/west major collector roadway which extends west from Meridian Road in Kalispell. The route has a paved 24-foot roadway with pedestrian sidewalks on the north side of the road from Meridian Road to Glenwood Drive. West of Greenbriar Drive, the roadway widens to include 2-foot shoulders, curb & gutter, and pedestrian access over the US 93, Kalispell Bypass 3/4-mile west of the signalized intersection with Meridian Road. The posted speed limit on Two Mile Drive is 25 MPH at Meridian Road and increases to 35 MPH at Cooper Lane. Cross -streets are STOP Abelin Traffic Services 1 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana controlled with the surrounding environment being mostly residential with a few undeveloped agricultural parcels remaining. Traffic data collected by MDT indicates that the roadway carried 3,558 VPD west of Meridian Road in 2022. Three Mile Drive (5-424) is a two-lane east/west minor arterial route that extends west from Meridian Road and provides access to the US 93 Kalispell bypass west. It continues west serving the greater Kalispell area, and is maintained by MDT. Three Mile Drive has a paved width of 28 feet. The route currently has a pedestrian path along the north side of the road. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH, with a reduced school zone speed of 25 MPH between Northwest Lane and Garland Street. Three Mile Drive is signal controlled at the intersection with Meridian Road, and all cross -streets in the area are STOP controlled. The adjacent environment is residential with some undeveloped agricultural land to the south. MDT's database indicates that the roadway carried 6,588 VPD west of Meridian Road in 2022. Meridian Road is a north/south minor arterial route that connects Highway 2 to Highway 93. This 56-foot urban road has a three to five lane cross-section with dedicated turn lanes provided at major intersections. Parking is off-street. The intersections with Three Mile Drive, Liberty Street, Two Mile Drive, and Highway 2 are all controlled by traffic signals. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. The adjacent roadside environment is dense commercial to the west with the Abelin Traffic Services 2 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana fairgrounds located along the eastside of the roadway. Traffic data obtained from MDT indicates that in 2022 the roadway carried 12,261 VPD north of Highway 2. Highway 2 (Idaho Street) is an east/west principal arterial route that passes through the City of Kalispell. This 84-foot urban roadway has a five -lane cross-section with traffic signals at major intersections. The road has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. The traffic data obtained from MDT indicates that in 2022 the roadway carried 14,928 VPD west of Meridian Road. Traffic Data In April 2023, Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) collected traffic data to evaluate current operational characteristics. This effort included peak -hour turning movement counts at the intersection of Meridian Road with Two Mile Drive and a 24-hour volume count on Two Mile Drive adjacent to Green Briar Drive. The raw data collected for this project may be adjusted for seasonal variation in accordance with the data collected from MDT's annual count station located on US Highway 2 west of Kalispell (Station A-24). This count station data indicated that the data collected in April is approximately 106% of the AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) in this area. In order to provide more conservative results and a more accurate assessment of peak summer traffic conditions, no seasonal factoring was performed on the traffic data collected for this analysis. The raw traffic data is included in Appendix A of this report. Vehicle speed and volume data was also collected along Two Mile Drive during the April count period. This information suggested that the average vehicle speed on this section of roadway was 34 MPH, while the 85 h percentile speed was 39 MPH for all recorded vehicles. In general, vehicle travel speeds on this section are near the posted 35 MPH speed limit. The ADT traffic volume collected on the section during the count period was 1,788 VPD which is near the available 2022 AADT volume for this road section. Historic Traffic Data Abelin Traffic Services obtained historic traffic data for the surrounding road network from the Montana DOT. This data is presented in Table 1. The traffic data history shows that traffic volumes on most road sections in this area decreased with the completion of the Kalispell bypass and have remained stable since. Abelin Traffic Services 3 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana Table 1 - Historic Traffic Data Location 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Hawthorn, N of Yellowstone St. 1,690 1,510 1,570 1,535 1,247 1,062 1,068 993 1,072 1,080 #15-7B-072 2 Mile Dr W of Meridian Rd 3,820 3,810 3,970 4,156 3,631 3,404 3,517 3,271 3,533 3,558 #15-7B-070 2 Mile Dr E of Spring Cr. br 2,110 2,320 2,480 1,921 1,620 1,817 1,709 1,589 1,716 1,512 #15-7B-082 Meridian Rd N of Liberty St 18,050 18,370 21,340 22,614 12,497 12,509 11,434 10,634 11,485 11,045 #15-7B-037 Meridian Rd N of Idaho 17,160 18,620 19,790 17,385 12,959 13,301 12,516 11,640 12,571 12,261 #15-7C-015 US2Wof Meridian Rd 15,890 18,090 18,520 18,933 13,015 17,360 15,084 13,757 14,898 14,928 #15-7C-001 Planned Road Improvements The 2006 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan predicted that traffic volumes on Two Mile Drive could reach 13,000 VPD by 2030. However, the recent Move 2040 Kalispell Area Transportation Plan did not predict major traffic volume increases along Two Mile Drive. This difference is likely due to the alterations in the road network with the Kalispell Bypass project which did not include a direct connection from Two Mile drive, which will limit potential future traffic growth on Two Mile Drive. Based on the new traffic models, it is expected that Two Mile Drive and the signalized intersection at Meridian Road will function at LOS A and B through 2040 with the planned projects in this area. The new plan did recommend reconstructing Two Mile Drive from Spring Creek Road to Meridian Road to a two-lane urban minor collector route (estimated cost $3,400,000). The roadway improvement has already been implemented adjacent to the proposed development with the Highway 93 bypass project. Level of Service Using the data collected for this project, ATS conducted a Level of Service (LOS) analysis at area intersections. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) version 8.2. Intersections are graded from A to F representing the average delay that a vehicle entering an Abelin Traffic Services 4 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana intersection can expect. Typically, a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak -hour conditions. Table 2 — 2023 Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay Sec. LOS Delay Sec. LOS Two Mile Drive & Meridian Road 12.7 B 11.6 B Table 2 shows the existing 2023 LOS for the AM and PM peak hours without the traffic from the proposed development. The LOS calculations are included in Appendix C. The table shows that the existing intersections in this area are currently operating within acceptable limits at LOS A to B. Based on current traffic conditions, no roadway modifications are needed for this area to improve roadway capacity. Area Crash Data ATS collected crash data from MDT's public crash site to assess intersections for geometric, traffic control, and roadway characteristic deficiencies. Generally, crashes are expressed as a rate of crashes per million vehicles entering (MVE) an intersection or crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) along a specified segment. Crash rates at rural and urban intersections in Montana typically range from 0.5 to 1.5 crashes per MVE. The 5-year MDT data (2017-2021) indicates that four crashes were recorded at the intersection of Two Mile Drive with Meridian Road, and 19 crashes were recorded along the Two Mile Drive study segment. The intersection crash rate is 0.14 crashes per MVE. Whereas, the crash rate on Two Mile Drive is 5.21 crashes per MVMT. Ten of the 19 crashes on Two Mile Drive occurred at or were adjacent to the intersection with Glenwood Drive. However, eight of these ten crashes occurred prior to 2019 and only two crashes have been reported at this location within the last four years. It is likely that the completion of the Highway 93 bypass project has corrected the safety issues at this location, but vehicle crash monitoring should continue. I1�l9.1910931:101DON ato]J iI40k1 The development to be constructed on this site includes 6.4 acres of land located south of Two Mile Drive and east of the Kalispell bypass which would be developed into 18 single family - residences, four townhouse lots (eight units total) and one utility lot. The two existing residential homes to the west of the site would connect with the internal road network for the Pioneer Estates and the existing approach for the residences would be abandoned. Access to Pioneer Estates would be provided through a new approach onto Two Mile Road 200 feet west of Greenbriar Drive. The internal road network would be constructed to City of Kalispell standards with curb/gutter and sidewalks. The Pioneer Estates development plan is shown in Figure 2. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2024. Abelin Traffic Services 5 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana Figure 2 — Proposed Pioneer Estates Development y£. s.ruas svarcrrrvc, mom_ PRELIMINARY PLAT OF. PIONEER ESTATES (aoe) rs-ewes w a ✓z xa er�i� In ArF114SW1/4 of SEC. 12, T28N., R.22W, P.YX CITY OF KALISPELL, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA Wt'M1if: AZUS ( fsi ante, LLG � ��� � I K -—= , 0 w I � � C n � �{8 �$ � ... � ppe i` �% '^r ♦ �,' run eu .e,w, tea. a.,e.n d I� 8 $m a y a M1 v Abelin Traffic Services I May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana E. TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine the anticipated future traffic volumes from the proposed developments using the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Eleventh Edition). These rates are the national standard and are based on the most current information available to planners. A vehicle "trip" is defined as any trip that either begins or ends at the development site. ATS determined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. According to the ITE trip generation rates, at full build -out the development would produce 17 AM peak hour trips, 21 PM peak hour trips, and 229 daily trips. See Table 3 for detailed trip generation information. Table 3 - Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Total AM PM Peak Total PM Hour Trip Peak Hour Trip Peak Weekday Total Ends per Hour Trip Ends per Hour Trip Trip Ends Weekday Land Use Units Unit Ends Unit Ends per Unit Trip Ends Single Residences 18 0.70 13 0.94 17 9.43 170 ITE #210 (3in 10out) (11 in 6out) Townhouses 4 4 8 0.46 0.56 7.32 59 ITE #220 (1 in/3out) (3in/1 out) TOTAL 26 17 214in/13out 229 14in/lout F. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The traffic distribution and assignment for the proposed subdivision was based upon the existing ADT volumes along the adjacent roadways and peak -hour volumes. Most of the traffic from the proposed development site will likely turn right onto Two Mile Drive and then distribute into Kalispell using Meridian Road. Drivers are expected to distribute onto the surrounding road network as shown in Figure 3. Abelin Traffic Services 7 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana Figure 3 — Peak -Hour Trip Distribution 30% Two Mile Drive o 10% 2 Ch co L W Q d O a� 0 60% G. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT Using the trip generation and trip distribution rates, ATS determined the future Level of Service for the area intersections. The anticipated intersection LOS with the proposed development is shown in Table 4. This analysis includes the projected traffic from the other planned developments in this area. The LOS calculations are included in Appendix C of this report. The table indicates that the construction of the Pioneer Estates will not cause any roadway capacity problems in this area. With the opening of the Kalispell Bypass, traffic volumes decreased and have since stabilized, and the traffic signals in this area have considerable reserve capacity. The Pioneer Estates development would increase traffic volumes by 6% on Two Mile Drive (206 VPD) and the project will increase traffic by 1% at the intersection of Meridian Road and Two Mile Drive. Total vehicle delay increases will be less than one second and the new approach onto Two Mile Drive will operate at LOS A. Table 4 — Projected Level of Service with Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay Sec. LOS Delay Sec. LOS Two Mile Drive & Meridian Road 13.1 B 11.7 B Pioneer Estates Approach & Two Mile Drive* 9.0 A 8.8 A * North bound/South bound LOS & Delay. Abelin Traffic Services 8 May, 2023 Pioneer Estates Traffic Impact Study Kalispell, Montana ATS also reviewed the left- and right -turn lane warrants for the intersection of Two Mile Drive and Pioneer Estates based on the recommended practices from the MDT Road Design Manual. The traffic volume analysis also showed that the installation of a left -turn or right -turn deceleration lane at the approach from Two Mile Drive are well below the threshold for turning lanes at this location. The turn -lane warrant calculations are included in Appendix D of this report. H. IMPACT SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS As proposed, the Pioneer Estates development would not create any new roadway capacity problems in this area. Overall, Pioneer Estates will account for a 1 to 6 percent increase in traffic volumes on the surrounding road network. All roadways and intersections in this area will function at LOS B or better with the planned project. No major traffic volume increases are expected in this area through 2040. No mitigation measures are recommended at this time with the development of the Pioneer Estates. Abelin Traffic Services 9 May, 2023 APPENDIX A Traffic Data Turning Movement Count All Vehicles Location 2Mile & Meridian Date 4/18/2023 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:30 11:30 - 11:45 11:45 - 12:00 12:00 - 12:15 12:15 - 12:30 12:30 - 12:45 12:45 - 1:00 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:30 1:30 - 1:45 1:45 - 2:00 2:00 - 2:15 2:15 - 2:30 2:30 - 2:45 2:45 - 3:00 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 3:30 - 3:45 3:45 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 4:30 - 4:45 4:45 - 5:00 5:00 - 5:15 5:15 - 5:30 5:30 - 5:45 5:45 - 6:00 6:00 - 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - 6:45 6:45 - 7:00 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound I eff Thr Rinht Peds I eff Thr Rinht Peds I eff Thr Rinht Peds I eff Thr Rinht Peds TOTAI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 77 0 1 0 55 5 0 11 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 185 14 130 0 0 0 118 13 2 22 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 340 23 137 2 1 1 114 7 0 17 0 53 0 1 1 0 1 358 21 100 0 2 2 106 6 0 9 0 40 0 0 0 1 0 287 16 106 0 0 0 87 7 1 18 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 278 24 108 0 1 0 74 9 0 16 0 33 1 0 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 100 1 1 0 131 22 1 11 0 37 1 0 1 0 1 350 31 120 1 1 0 151 13 3 13 0 37 0 0 0 1 1 372 37 106 2 0 0 154 9 3 14 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 360 41 138 5 7 0 165 13 0 16 0 46 0 3 0 4 0 438 54 127 3 5 4 149 15 1 15 0 33 1 2 0 1 0 410 23 84 4 3 3 109 13 0 13 0 46 1 1 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 519B=llK$i«If:�, D=iEfIItl/19 8t1FA. L! m N > O N '6 N N 3 n m > m N S 6 L O 2 W a m N O � O N m O � O N � C ti ti O a a a a z z z z a a a a z z z z a a a a z z z z a a a a Z Z Z Z m n ip m m V m m m m U1 � C � m C O O 2 > io II Ow p 3 m o o m W \ \ m o o m o o v O D m m a m m C a a a a �n S w O O m m m N m C Z Z Z Z Z a> v N i � Y o 0� j O C C U \ v a+ N N U U N L �✓ ? 0 Y Y C C U N -U U 0 J 2 V — ++ U1 -O -O 0 U 0 II O �Ul ~ 3 2 Ul '0 O Ul L L, Q N 0 0 N N Ul p OD OD S S S LLJ °asp a > 3 aaa °mwooa ��aa u >>>> 0 TT, Q x 7 l O 01 01 01 r- l- 01 06 O1 r � O N M .o �i N . ^fi N pq N � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M 7 T Vl l� Vl Vl 7 ti N Vl Ni Vl O O O l� 41 O1 14 N �i 7 O N - r NN -lit � r r � r 7 N ID M N �a N � M O N o V� 7 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t O O M T N � O "O N N N o V� 7 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t O O M N O T N N o W 7 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t O O T M � N ..O O N O N o 7 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t O O T O dj O c M Vl Vl Vl O N O IN" �D Ni Vl O O O Vl 7 7 7 O N ,--i r M N N o N t t t t t t t t t t t t t t al 7 M M N T N O � � 0 7 7 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t Cl Cl O O U T .x N N Q '3 O O Ni ~ 41 NO N F o NN MN O APPENDIX A Traffic Model N L 0 v RE rn n•I O U m U N O L d O O 10.L t 0 1.0 O ri ri m c-I l0 N l0 � O r-I r-I O r-I r-I Ln N Z� Jh t r► Ln l0 l0 00 l0 ri v O O 10.L t 0 Ln O U c-1 U N O L d U to L L to N 4 J 7 O Ln O " L c _Ile L n Co d O � � d H Ln a ht0 U N O L d rn Ito N Ln rL Lf1 00 c-1 co O IR c-I 0 u U co w t O L Y U to L N — W Y ai Y U w O .N OL L Co N U d 4J N O C aJ N N L 0 v I 0) rn �t U m U N O L d t 0 l0 O c-I c-I RE a v M c-I U) N r0.L t 0 111 N LD APPENDIX C LOS Calculations HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information J.4. Ii-i41 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 t Analyst RLA Analysis Date May 9, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 + Urban Street Meridian Road Analysis Year 2023 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 1TWo Mile Drive File Name MeridianAM.xus Project Description Pioneer Estates .11 r_'-err-r' Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 68 0 1 204 1 4 1 4 0 92 1 540 8 4 1 444 28 Signal Information F� 3 4 Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 0.6 0.8 58.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 6 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On LRed 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Case Number 6.0 6.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 18.2 18.2 9.4 67.2 4.6 62.4 Change Period, ( Y+R ), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 13.3 13.7 3.3 2.1 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 0.90 0.10 Max Out Probability 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 68 204 4 0 92 540 8 4 238 234 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 1401 1572 1169 0 1767 1856 1572 1767 1856 1816 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 3.9 11.3 1 0.3 0.0 1.3 11.0 0.1 0.1 4.6 4.7 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g ), s 4.1 11.3 11.7 0.0 1.3 11.0 0.1 0.1 4.6 4.7 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.73 10.126 0.70 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.65 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 298 248 117 732 1303 1105 571 1204 1179 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.228 0.822 0.034 0.000 0.414 0.007 0.007 0.198 0.199 Back of Queue ( Q ), Win ( 95 th percentile) 59.8 200.1 4 0 16.4 168.3 1.8 1 77.2 74.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 2.3 7.8 0.2 0.0 0.6 6.6 0.1 0.0 3.0 3.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh 33.7 36.7 42.3 3.7 5.6 4.0 5.7 6.4 6.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 33.9 39.3 42.4 3.7 6.6 4.0 5.7 6.7 6.7 Level of Service (LOS) C D D A A A A A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 37.9 D 37.2 D 6.1 A 6.7 F A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.7 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.30 B 2.13 B 1.85 B 1.87 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.94 A 0.50 A 1.54 B 0.88 A Copyright © 2023 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS'm Streets Version 2023 Generated: 5/30/2023 10:14:18 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information J.4. Ii-i41 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 t Analyst RLA Analysis Date May 9, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 1.00 + Urban Street Meridian Road Analysis Year 2023 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 1TWo Mile Drive File Name MeridianPM.xus Project Description Pioneer Estates .11 r_'-err-r' Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 60 0 1 184 1 12 0 16 164 544 1 20 4 660 52 Signal Information l 3 4 Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 0.6 1.3 58.5 13.6 0.0 0.0 1 ,!� 5 6 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On LRed 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Case Number 6.0 6.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 17.6 17.6 9.9 67.8 4.6 62.5 Change Period, ( Y+R ), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 12.1 13.0 4.4 2.1 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 0.98 0.10 Max Out Probability 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 60 184 12 16 164 544 20 4 360 352 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 1386 1572 1190 1572 1767 1856 1572 1767 1856 1807 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 3.5 10.1 1 0.9 0.8 2.4 10.9 0.3 0.1 7.6 7.6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g ), s 4.3 10.1 11.0 0.8 2.4 10.9 0.3 0.1 7.6 7.6 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.74 10.269 0.71 0.71 0.66 0.65 0.65 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 278 239 126 239 609 1314 1114 575 1205 1173 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.216 0.770 0.095 0.067 0.414 0.018 0.007 0.299 0.300 Back of Queue ( Q ), Win ( 95 th percentile) 53.4 179.91 11.9 1 13.6 29 164.5 4.3 1 126.5 120.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 2.1 7.0 0.5 0.5 1.1 6.4 0.2 0.0 4.9 4.8 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh 34.6 36.7 42.0 32.7 4.1 5.4 3.9 5.7 6.9 6.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 34.7 38.6 42.1 32.7 4.2 6.4 3.9 5.7 7.5 7.5 Level of Service (LOS) C D D C A A A A A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 37.7 D 36.8 D 5.8 A 7.5 F A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.6 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.30 B 2.13 B 1.85 B 1.87 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.89 A 0.53 A 1.69 B 1.08 A Copyright © 2023 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS'm Streets Version 2023 Generated: 5/30/2023 10:15:26 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information J.4. Ii-i41 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 t Analyst RLA Analysis Date May 9, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Time Period AM Peak Future PHF 1.00 + Urban Street Meridian Road Analysis Year 2024 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 1TWo Mile Drive File Name MeridianAMw.xus Project Description Pioneer Estates .11 r_'-err-r' Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 72 0 1 213 1 4 1 4 0 95 1 540 8 4 444 29 Signal Information 3 4 Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 0.6 0.9 57.8 14.7 0.0 0.0 1 5 6 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On LRed 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Case Number 6.0 6.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 18.7 18.7 9.4 66.7 4.6 61.8 Change Period, ( Y+R ), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 13.8 14.1 3.4 2.1 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 0.91 0.10 Max Out Probability 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 11767 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 72 213 4 0 95 540 8 4 238 235 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 1401 1572 1159 0 1856 1572 1767 1856 1815 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 4.1 11.8 1 0.3 0.0 1.4 11.2 0.1 0.1 4.7 4.8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g ), s 4.3 11.8 12.1 0.0 1.4 11.2 0.1 0.1 4.7 4.8 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.73 10.131 0.70 0.70 0.65 0.64 0.64 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 306 257 117 726 1293 1095 564 1192 1166 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.235 0.827 0.034 0.000 0.418 0.007 0.007 0.200 0.201 Back of Queue ( Q ), Win ( 95 th percentile) 63 206.71 4 1 0 17.4 174.1 1.8 1.1 79 76.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 2.5 8.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 6.8 0.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh 33.4 36.4 42.3 3.9 5.8 4.2 5.9 6.6 6.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 33.5 39.0 42.3 3.9 6.8 4.2 5.9 7.0 7.0 Level of Service (LOS) C D D A A A A A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 37.6 D 36.9 D 6.4 A 7.0 F A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 13.1 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.30 B 2.13 B 1.85 B 1.87 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.96 A 0.50 A 1.55 B 0.88 A Copyright © 2023 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS'm Streets Version 2023 Generated: 5/30/2023 10:16:07 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information J.4. Ii-i41 Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 t Analyst RLA Analysis Date May 9, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Time Period PM Peak Future PHF 1.00 + Urban Street Meridian Road Analysis Year 2024 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 1TWo Mile Drive File Name MeridianPMw.xus Project Description Pioneer Estates .11 r_'-err-r' Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 62 0 1 189 1 12 0 16 173 544 1 20 4 660 56 Signal Information l 3 4 Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 0.6 1.3 58.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 1 5 6 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On LRed 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Case Number 6.0 6.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 17.9 17.9 9.9 67.5 4.6 62.1 Change Period, ( Y+R ), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 12.4 13.3 4.6 2.1 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 0.99 0.10 Max Out Probability 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 62 189 12 16 173 544 20 4 363 353 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 1386 1572 1185 1572 1767 1856 1572 1767 1856 1804 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 3.6 10.4 1 0.9 0.8 2.6 11.0 0.3 0.1 7.7 7.8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g ), s 4.4 10.4 11.3 0.8 2.6 11.0 0.3 0.1 7.7 7.8 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.73 10.286 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.65 0.65 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 282 244 126 244 605 1308 1109 571 1198 1165 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.220 0.774 0.095 0.066 0.416 0.018 0.007 0.303 0.303 Back of Queue ( Q ), Win ( 95 th percentile) 55 184.51 11.9 1 13.5 31.5 167.4 4.4 1 129.3 123.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 2.2 7.2 0.5 0.5 1.2 6.5 0.2 0.0 5.1 4.9 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh 34.4 36.5 42.0 32.4 4.2 5.5 4.0 5.8 7.0 7.0 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 34.5 38.5 42.1 32.5 4.3 6.5 4.0 5.8 7.7 7.7 Level of Service (LOS) C D D C A A A A A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 37.5 D 36.6 D 5.9 A 7.7 F A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.7 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.30 B 2.13 B 1.85 B 1.87 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.90 A 0.53 A 1.70 B 1.08 A Copyright © 2023 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS'm Streets Version 2023 Generated: 5/30/2023 10:16:42 AM General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Two Mile & Pioneer Agency/Co. ATS Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 5/9/2023 East/West Street Two Mile Drive Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Pioneer Estates Time Analyzed AM Peak with Dev. Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Pioneer Estates Lanes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h) 116 0 4 39 1 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 4 16 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1451 909 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0.0 9.0 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.7 9.0 Approach LOS A A Copyright C 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS T" TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/30/2023 10:12:28 AM PioneerAMw.xtw General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Two Mile & Pioneer Agency/Co. ATS Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 5/9/2023 East/West Street Two Mile Drive Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Pioneer Estates Time Analyzed PM Peak with Dev. Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Pioneer Estates Lanes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ir Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h) 65 2 14 129 1 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles (9/6) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 16 9 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1519 944 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0.1 8.8 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.8 8.8 Approach LOS A A Copyright C 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS T" TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/30/2023 10:13:57 AM PioneerPMw.xtw APPENDIX C Turn Lane Warrants ]ƒS(8) INTERSECTION AT -GRADE December 2004 Z7) LD ()§\ 1 by®2 .z &0§2 + )\[Lu ) ' LL RF j +k,L [§ƒx I �\r ��02 ���z k >3Lu �B §92/ z§ R § LUL �o 6{2cc3$ 6-§0Lu LL LLJ z ) m LULU ) ( �]_ §xF-O2a �o aw �� z �q ) J] (n Fq g .LU \ \ L � .� @ e ®§�B ee��2 § �§\`k ! oI> �LLLu / . C 8 8 L § � � \ � (a $ § § It § § § HnOH NOG]c SNanc(HdA) ]nm OA OmSOddO-OA TF 7 2 E 0= CD CL « E 2 le 2 � M � 2 � ± 2 W U. 2 q O 2 U. O 2 U) Z :i _ LU� W F- 2 � O » L�$$' lopeside Engineering May 24, 2023 Siderius Construction, LLP 737 Egan Road Kalispell, MT, 59901 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Pioneer Estates Kalispell, Montana Job No. 23-414 Dear Mr. Doug Siderius, At your request, Slopeside Engineering, LLC (Slopeside) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the planned Pioneer Estates Development in Kalispell, Montana. The Vicinity Map, Figure 1, shows the general location of the site. The investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface materials, observe conditions at the site, and develop recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, general foundation guidelines, concrete flatwork, asphaltic concrete pavement (AC) sections, and utility trench construction. The investigation included a review of existing subsurface information for the site vicinity, subsurface explorations, and engineering analyses. This report describes the work accomplished and provides our conclusions and recommendations for use in the design and construction of the site development phase of this project. Slopeside has strived to perform the investigation and develop recommendations in a manner consistent with the degree of care that is presently standard to the geotechnical engineering profession. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southeast corner of the Two Mile Drive and US Highway 93 Alternate Highway intersection, west of the Greenbriar Subdivision, on the west side of Kalispell, \ slop esideeng�gmail.com 406-270-3480 PO Box 7460 Kalispell, MT, 59904 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC Montana. We understand the planned development will consist of residential lots. We anticipate site improvements will consist of site grading, utility construction, construction of asphaltic concrete paved roadways and concrete sidewalks, and the creation of residential building lots. The planned site layout at the time of the subsurface investigation is located on Figure 2, Site Plan. SITE DESCRIPTION General The project site is bordered by residential construction to the north and east, and US Hwy 93 Alternate to the west and south. Past development of the site appears to be limited to possible outbuildings in the northwest corner of the site; however, these building were not present at the time of this investigation. The majority of the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and most recently for pasture grass and hay. The site is vegetated with grasses. Seeps and springs were not observed at the ground surface within the planned development area. Topography Site observations and review of the topographic site plan indicate the site is relatively flat. Minor slopes are present at the embankment for Two Mile Drive on the north end of the project. Seeps and springs were not observed at the time of the subsurface investigation. Geology The project site lies in the Rocky Mountain Trench bounded by the Salish Mountains to the West and the Swan Range to the East. The trench was traversed by the Flathead Glacier and was covered by substantial areas of glacial lakes during recession of the ice mass. The surficial geology of the area consists of silts and clays deposited by glacial lakes and sands and gravels deposited during more turbulent times. The soils are underlain by glacial till soils consisting of silty gravel with large cobbles and boulders that were deposited during glaciation of the area. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Subsurface materials and conditions at the site were investigated on April 27, 2023 with four test pits, designated TP-1 through TP-4. The test pits were excavated throughout the planned development and extended down to depths of about 8 to 9 ft below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs of the test pits are provided on Figures I through 4A. Soils Typical soils observed at the ground surface consist of topsoil over laminated lakebed deposits comprised of a layered system of silt, silty clay and lean clay. The fine grained lakebed deposits are underlain by sand with varying percentages of silt. For the purpose of discussion, the materials and soils disclosed by the subsurface investigation have been grouped into the following categories: Page 2 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC 1. TOPSOIL 2. Laminated Lakebed Deposits: SILT, Silty CLAY, and Lean CLAY 3. Silty SAND 1. TOPSOIL. All explorations advanced for this proj ect encountered topsoil at the ground surface. The topsoil is dark brown and comprised of silt with varying percentages of fine grained sand and abundant organics. The topsoil appears medium stiff and ranges from about 10 to 15 inches thick, with an average thickness of about 12 inches. The topsoil is underlain by laminated lakebed deposits comprised of silt, silty clay, and lean clay. 2. Laminated Lakebed Deposits: SILT, Silty CLAY, and Lean CLAY. Glacial Lakebed deposits comprised of laminated silt, silty clay, and lean clay, were encountered beneath the topsoil at depths of 10 to 15 inches below the ground surface. The fine grained soils are very stiff, and grayish brown, pinkish brown and brown. At the time of the subsurface investigation, the soils appeared moist and near to slightly above the optimum moisture content for compaction (ASTM D698). The very stiff fine grained soils extend to depths of 6 to 7.5 ft where they are underlain by silty sand. 3. Silty SAND. Silty sand was encountered below the lakebed deposits in all test pits advanced for this investigation. The silty sand is typically medium dense to dense, brown, and damp to moist. However, very moist to wet conditions were observed at a depth of 8.5 ft in Test pit TP-3 . The sand is fine grained and appears dry of the optimum moisture content for compaction (ASTM D698) to depths of about 8.5 ft. The silt percentage appears to decrease with depth in test pits TP-1 and TP-2; however, silt percentages increased in depth in Test Pit TP-3. Test Pits TP-1 through TP-4 were all terminated in this layer at depths of 8 to 9 ft. Groundwater Groundwater was not observed during this investigation. A 4-inch perforated pipe was installed to a depth of 9 ft in the vicinity of the planned stormwater detention basin for periodic groundwater monitoring. Based on observations of soils at the time of the test pit excavations, it appears groundwater levels are typically slightly greater than 10 ft below the ground surface. We anticipate the groundwater level rises and lowers somewhat in response to the dry and wet seasons, and likely ranges from 10 to 20 ft below the ground surface. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS General Our understanding is the proposed subdivision will consist of residential lots with utility construction and asphaltic concrete paved roads. Planned residences will consist of one- to two- story structures with no basements or below grade finished spaces. Concrete slab on grade floors above surrounding grades or crawl spaces excavated to about 3 to 4 ft below surrounding finished grades will be utilized. We anticipate that maximum column and continuous wall loads will be less than 100 kips and 4 kips per lineal ft, respectively. Asphaltic concrete paved roadways will provide Page 3 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC access to the residential lots. We anticipate utility trench depths will range from about 6 to 10 ft deep. Planned earthwork will consist of cuts and fills up to about 5 feet thick. Site Preparation The soils encountered at the ground surface in the vicinity of the planned improvements consist of topsoil underlain by silt and clay soils. Site stripping will need to be conducted in all planned development areas. We anticipate the topsoil and rooted zones will vary between 10 and 15 inches in most areas. Larger topsoil thicknesses may be present in low lying areas and in drainage swales. We anticipate an average stripping thickness of about 12 inches for this site. In addition, existing utilities, foundations, drain fields, septic tanks, concrete slabs, and any other previously constructed below grade features shall be removed down to firm native soils and brought back to subgrade elevation using Structural Fill as described in the Recommendations section of this report. The soils encountered near the ground surface within the planned site development area consist primarily of fine-grained moisture -sensitive soils. Based on past experience, the near -surface fine-grained soils encountered during this investigation have little cohesion. As a result, these soils can be easily disturbed and strength diminished during construction if in -situ moisture contents are greater than the optimum moisture content for compaction. This is of particular concern during the seasonally wet times of the year when seepage or surface water is allowed to pond and infiltrate. Therefore, positive site drainage is of critical importance to both construction and long-term performance of the proposed improvements. Based on our experience in the project vicinity and observations during the subsurface investigation, we anticipate groundwater depths will be greater than 10 ft below the ground surface at most locations, and will likely be below the planned excavation limits and utility construction. Earthwork We understand it is desirable to use on -site soils for the construction of Structural Fill. Near surface, on -site soils consist primarily of silt and clay. With the exception of topsoil, all soils encountered during this investigation are suitable for Structural Fill construction as long as the soils are free of organics, deleterious materials, and cobbles or boulders larger than 6 inches. Compaction of Structural Fill shall be accomplished when moisture contents are within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698. Observations revealed that in most areas, the in situ soils are typically near or wet of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698, indicating moisture conditioning using drying methods will likely need to be utilized prior to compaction. In the event that the natural moisture contents of the in situ soils are less than the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698, water will need to be added to the soils and the soils will need to be moisture conditioned to approach the optimum moisture content. It should be noted that laminated lakebed deposits typically excavate in stiff chunks and can be difficult to break up and compact. In addition, construction of Structural Fill during relatively wet weather or when temperatures are below freezing (including nightly low temperatures), will significantly reduce the efficiency of earthwork operations. Limiting mass grading to the relatively dry and warm late spring, summer or early fall months will reduce the likelihood of weather affecting construction operations. Page 4 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC Foundation Design Shallow foundations for typical residential structures shall be established in the native, undisturbed very stiff silt and clay soils, or compacted Structural Fill. Assuming Slopeside's recommendations are followed, we anticipate the site will be suitable for typical residential construction. We understand basements and below grade living spaces are not planned within this subdivision. However, crawl spaces are considered suitable within the development. Slopeside recommends foundation drains consistent with Detail 1, and emergency sump pumps be installed at all residences that contain a crawl space. The drains and pumps shall outlet at locations suitable to the civil engineer. Dampproofing or waterproofing shall be provided consistent with the desired level of protection. In areas where concrete slab -on -grade floors are planned above surrounding grades, a vapor retarding membrane (installed per the manufacturer's recommendations) beneath the slab -on - grade floors should be considered in areas where moisture sensitive flooring is planned, and where extra precaution against moist floors is desired. Pavement Analysis Flexible pavement designs have been conducted using the 1993 edition of the AASHTO Guide to Pavement Design. Local road pavement sections are provided based on the intended use of the paved areas and our experience with similar projects. Local road pavement sections should be used for interior roads at the development and not maj or through streets. A CBR value of 5 was used to model the subgrade, assuming the subgrade consists of undisturbed very stiff clay soils or soils compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 and the moisture content is within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. The pavement sections are presented in the Recommendations section of this report. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General Site Preparation 1.1 The removal of topsoil and other organic material, including the clearing and grubbing of surficial vegetation and root zones, should be accomplished within the construction zone prior to any earthwork construction. An average stripping thickness of about 12 inches to remove topsoil and cultivated zones is anticipated across the site. Following removal of surface organics, the underlying soils shall be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer for suitability as a subgrade material in all pavement, earthwork, and building areas. The subgrade shall consist of undisturbed very stiff silt, silty clay or lean clay soils. 1.2 Surface drainage should be established to direct runoff away from the construction area. Ditching and detention/retention ponds with sump pumps may be needed to control the flow of runoff water. 1.3 Excavated material or structural fill to be placed as backfill shall not be stockpiled within Page 5 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC 10 ft of open trenches. Stockpiling soil on or near steep excavation will add weight to the side slopes that will reduce the factor of safety against sliding. 1.4 Soils encountered near the ground surface have a relatively high silt percentage. These soils are fine grained, moisture -sensitive soils that are easily disturbed by construction activities and traffic when moisture contents are greater than the optimum moisture content for compaction. In the event moisture contents of the silt and clay soils are greater than the optimum moisture content for compaction, we recommend construction traffic not travel over the fine grained subgrade soils. In areas where heavy construction traffic is anticipated, haul roads with a minimum gravel thickness of 2 feet should be constructed over the planned subgrade. The gravel shall consist of a well -graded gravel with a maximum size of 3 inches with no more than 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Geotextile fabric placed between the fine-grained soils and gravel for the haul road will reduce the risk of continued maintenance of the haul road during construction. Provided that the haul road is constructed over firm subgrade stripped of organics, it can be used as a portion of the subbase course for the roadways. 1.5 The stability of construction excavations and associated worker safety are the responsibility of the contractor in accordance with current OSHA regulations; this responsibility may require design by a registered professional engineer. Based on the predominant soil types encountered during our investigation, temporary construction excavations for dry conditions that are to be planned in accordance with OSHA provisions should assume Type B material conditions for the fine grained silt, silty clay and lean clay soils. Type C material should be assumed for sand soils. Actual subsurface conditions at the time of excavation should be observed by a geotechnical engineer to determine whether slope flattening, bracing or other stabilization is necessary due to seepage or other unexpected conditions. 2.0 Excavation, Earthwork, and Construction Materials 2.1 Based on observations during Slopeside's subsurface investigation, we anticipate subgrade soil moisture contents will be at or greater than the optimum moisture content for compaction. Assuming moisture contents of subgrade soils are greater than the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698, track -mounted hydraulic excavators equipped with smooth lipped buckets should be used to accomplish excavation to subgrade in all Structural Fill, roadway and foundation areas. The use of track -mounted equipment equipped with smooth cutting edges will reduce the risk of disturbing the underlying moisture -sensitive, fine-grained soils. Rubber -tired equipment, including graders and scrapers, used within 2 feet of subgrade elevation will greatly increase the risk of disturbing the underlying subgrade soils when moisture contents are greater than the optimum moisture content for compaction. 2.2 Structural Fill constructed within proposed roadways, building pads, engineered slopes and all other areas that are settlement sensitive shall be comprised of soils that are free of organics and deleterious materials. All Structural Fill material shall be placed in no greater than 8-inch thick lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry Page 6 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC density as determined by ASTM D698. In addition, the moisture content of the Structural Fill at the time of compaction shall be within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698. Cobbles and boulders larger than 6 inch maximum size shall not be used as fill material. Structural Fills shall consist of on -site soils or be from a material source approved by our geotechnical engineer and meet the following composition guidelines: • The sand and gravel -size particles comprising the fill shall be hard, durable rock materials that will not degrade by moistening or under mechanical action of the compacting equipment; i.e. not shale or other clayey rock types. • The binder/fines should have maximum Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index values of 25 and 10 percent, respectively. • No frozen, organic, or other deleterious materials should be present in the Structural Fill. 2.3 In the event that fill operations are planned for the relatively wet fall, winter and spring months, the fill material may need to be comprised of granular Structural Fill free of organics and deleterious materials. All granular Structural Fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. In addition, the moisture content of the granular Structural Fill at the time of compaction shall be within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698. Granular Structural Fills shall consist of aggregate from a material source approved by our geotechnical engineer and meet the following gradation and composition guidelines: Screen or Sieve Size Percent Passing by Weight 3-inch 100 1 1/z-inch 85-100 No. 4 30-60 No. 200 10 maximum The sand and gravel -size particles comprising the fill should be hard, durable rock materials that will not degrade by moistening or under mechanical action of the compacting equipment; i.e. not shale or other clayey rock types. The binder/fines should have maximum Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index values of 25 and 10 percent, respectively. No frozen, organic, or other deleterious materials should be present in the Structural Fill. 2.4 Fill placement should be observed and tested by our geotechnical site representative. Any Page 7 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC areas of rutting, excessive deformation, or other non -uniform performance should be moisture conditioned and recompacted, or removed and replaced, as recommended by our geotechnical engineer. Structural Fill should not be placed on frozen subgrade material or previously placed Structural Fill or subgrade that has frozen. 2.5 Utility trench backfill material should be approved by our geotechnical engineer, be placed in uniform lifts of maximum 8-inch loose thickness, and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. Due to the difficult nature of moisture conditioning and compacting laminated clay soils, in our opinion, backfill procedures required by the City of Kalispell shall be followed. Backfill should not be placed on frozen subgrade material or previously placed backfill that has frozen. Based on observations during the subsurface investigation, it appears the on site sand soils may be suitable for pipe bedding material. Assuming the sand soils meet the gradation and composition guidelines per the City of Kalispell Construction Standards, in our opinion, the sand is a suitable pipe bedding material. 2.6 Since it is difficult to compact the surface of fill slopes, we recommend fill slopes be overbuilt by 2 feet and trimmed back after construction to provide a surface that is more resistant to localized sloughing. Following construction of all slopes, topsoil can be placed and "track walked" with an appropriately sized dozer. It is important to vegetate and promote root growth after placement of the topsoil on sand and silt soils to reduce the risk of localized sloughing. 2.7 Permanent slopes shall be no steeper than 2H:1V within this development. 3.0 Site Drainage 3.1 Finished site grades should be positively sloped away from foundation and backfill zones. Upslope grading should be designed and maintained to route runoff away from the building areas. In the event subsurface drainage is necessary in low lying or wet areas, French Drains consistent with Detail 2 should be utilized. 3.2 Due to the sensitive nature of existing slopes, stormwater, drains, and roof gutters shall not be allowed to outlet on slopes steeper than 3H:1V, unless appropriate outfall measures are taken to reduce erosion. 4.0 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 4.1 In preparation for subbase course, the subgrade shall consist of undisturbed very stiff silt or clay soils, or of Structural Fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. Any areas where rutting, yielding, or non -uniform subgrade performance is observed, shall be repaired and improved as recommended by our geotechnical engineer. Compacted silt and undisturbed clay is the assumed pavement subgrade material. 4.2 The following flexible pavement thickness design sections assume a 20-year design period, Page 8 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC and are consistent with City of Kalispell Standards for Construction. The pavement sections assume construction procedures and material requirements as outlined in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, Sixth Edition, 2010, are followed. Pavement Component Local Street Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 4 in. 3/4-inch minus Crushed Base Course 6 in. 3 inch minus Crushed Subbase 9 in. 5.0 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 5.1 Concrete flatwork that is allowed to move independently, such as sidewalks, typically have minimal damage of the concrete due to frost heave. As long as the concrete is allowed to raise and lower without being fixed at the edges, minimal cracking due to frost heave is anticipated. 5.2 To reduce the risk of frost heave occurring within the limits of the exterior concrete flatwork and affecting entryways and fixed concrete slabs, Slopeside recommends a combination of reducing water infiltration and removing some of the frost susceptible soils. Slopeside recommends reducing the amount of surface water infiltrating into the ground by collecting roof water in gutters and hard piping the runoff to an acceptable outlet approved by the Civil Engineer. Slopeside also recommends the frost susceptible subgrade soils be overexcavated to a depth of about 2 ft below the bottom of concrete elevation and backfilled with at least 18 inches of Structural Fill consisting of 3 inch minus "pit run" gravel with no more than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The upper 6 inches of base material below the concrete should consist of 1/4 inch to 1 inch open -graded angular drain rock. The drain rock shall be compacted using vibratory methods until well -keyed, and positive drainage shall be provided to allow water to exit from the open graded gravel. 6.0 Construction Services and Quality Control 6.1 Geotechnical observation should be provided to monitor the site preparation, earthwork, and AC pavement stages of construction. These geotechnical services should ascertain that subsurface conditions are reasonably consistent with those determined by our investigation, and should ascertain that site and foundation preparation are consistent with our recommendations. This is of critical importance due to the location of the improvements in relationship to the existing slope. CONCLUSION The foregoing recommendations present our initial geotechnical input for design and Page 9 Pioneer Estates - Kalispell, Montana Slopeside Engineering, LLC construction of the project. In order for these recommendations to be properly incorporated in the subsequent design and construction stages we recommend that our geotechnical engineering staff remain involved with the project to ascertain that our recommendations have been properly interpreted both during design and construction. These services will reduce the potential for misinterpretation of subsurface conditions and geotechnical design recommendations that are important in the preparation of project plans, specifications and bid documents. LIMITATIONS Slopeside Engineering, LLC, has strived to prepare this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area solely for use by the client for design purposes and is not intended as a construction or bid document representing subsurface conditions in their entirety. The conclusions and recommendations presented are based upon the data obtained during the investigation as applied to the proposed design and construction details discussed in this report. The nature and extent of variations between the subsurface explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations are then exposed, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Sincerely, JOSHUA OOYN A3 SMITH No. 15675 PE n•........... '�`O3�iX- Joshua C. Smith, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Page 10 44-- ��uy�. 7; ftF h W ti. L Project: Pioneer Estates Job Number: 23-414 Kalispell, Montana Date: May 24, 2023 Vicinity Map S lope3ide, Slopeside Engineering, LLC Kalispell, MT � Engineering FIGURE 1 4-C-- N F _ Project: Pioneer Estates Job Number: 23-414 Kalispell, Montana Date: May 24, 2023 Site Plan S lope3ide Slopeside Engineering, LLC Kalispell, MT XXxEngineering FIGURE 2 Wall Backfill/Drainage Provide Positive Drainage 1 ft cover Minimum s. 2 ft wide Structural Fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 Minimum T wide layer of 1/2" to 2" open -graded drainage aggregate wrapped with non -woven drainage geotextile wrap such as Mirafi 140N. Drain rock shall be compacted using vibratory methods until well -keyed. Crawl Space 4" or 6" diameter slotted ADS underdrain sloped at 0.002 ft/ft to positive outlet. Underdrainage should follow footing grade around the full perimeter and outlet at a location approved by the Civil Engineer No Scale Intended Project: Pioneer Estates Job Number: 23-414 Kalispell, Montana Date: May 24, 2023 Perimeter Underdrainage�p�S1d Slopeside Engineering, LLC Kalispell, MT netaill -\�"Engineering Typical French Drain 2 ft Typical ILI Non -woven drainage geotextile, such as Mirafi 140N, placed between the silt and sand soils and open -graded drain ;: ;• rock. Typically 2' thick layer of 1/2" to 2" open -graded drainage aggregate wrapped with non -woven drainage geotextile wrap such as Mirafi 140N. Approximately 1 ft of cover. Use open -graded drainage aggregate if drain is designed to control the flow of surface water. Otherwise, topsoil is appropriate in nonstructural areas, and Structural Fill or Roadway subbase can be used, depending onthe location of the French Drain. 1 ft Typical ft Typical 4" or 6" diameter slotted ADS underdrain sloped at 0.002 ft/ft to positive outlet. No Scale Intended Project: Pioneer Estates Job Number: 23-414 Kalispell, Montana Date: May 24, 2023 Typical French Drain Slopeside Engineering, LLC ,opeside Kalispell, 2 S' Detail 2,' Engineering ♦�opesidQ PROJECT: Pioneer Estates PROJECT NO.: 23-414 \\\ Engineering CLIENT: Siderius Construction, LLP DATE: April 27, 2023 LOCATION: See Site Plan. ELEVATION: 2,974 ft SUBCONTRACTOR: Siderius Construction LOGGED BY: Joshua Smith TP-1 METHOD: John Deere 50G GW: _ r Uj w = TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit �� Liquid Limit EL ai a zz 0- a�i o } U) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a N o F Water Content • (percent) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 J J J JJ J SILT with Sand; medium stiff, dark brown, moist, abundant 0 8 J J J or amcs TOPSOIL ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... SILT, Silty CLAY, and Lean CLAY; very stiff, brown, grayish brown, and pinkish -brown layers, moist (Laminated Lakebed Deposits) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2.5 .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5 00 ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Silty SAND; medium dense to dense, fine grained, brown, damp to ... ... ... ... moist ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7.5 - Silt content tends to decrease with depth. SAND with Silt below . 8 ft. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Test Pit TP-1 terminated at 9 ft. io -- _= I .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ti ' q a 12.5 sR -- f. r..- �:r�i• is ,-. . _ . ... ... ... ... ... ... yyl �fY 1� h 17.5 P4 AY ` sl .� �.' ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Groundwater not encountered. Installed 4"perforated pipe for periodic groundwater measurements to a depth of 9 ft. Figure 1A PAGE 1 of 1 \Slvpeside PROJECT: Pioneer Estates PROJECT NO.: 23-414 h�lhe�r«� CLIENT: Siderius Construction, LLP DATE: April 27, 2023 LOCATION: See Site Plan. ELEVATION: 2,974 ft SUBCONTRACTOR: Siderius Construction LOGGED BY: Joshua Smith TP-2 METHOD: John Deere 50G GW: Ql- _ LU = TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit �� Liquid Limit a 2 a a°�i O} cn MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a o F Cn Water Content (percent) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 J J J JJ J SILT with Sand; medium stiff, dark brown, moist, abundant 0.8 J J J organics TOPSOIL ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... SILT, Silty CLAY, and Lean CLAY; very stiff, brown, grayish brown, and pinkish -brown layers, moist (Laminated Lakebed Deposits) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2.5 .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5 00 00 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 01 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Silty SAND; medium dense to dense, fine grained, brown, damp to moist ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7.5 - Silt content tends to decrease with depth. SAND with Silt below . 8 ft. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Test Pit TP-2 terminated at 9 ft. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -10 k4 'Wv .. .. 12.5 R 15 _ � i 17.5 Groundwater not encountered. Figure 2A PAGE 1 of 1 ♦�opesidQ PROJECT: Pioneer Estates PROJECT NO.: 23-414 \\\ Engineering CLIENT: Siderius Construction, LLP DATE: April 27, 2023 LOCATION: See Site Plan. ELEVATION: 2,974 ft SUBCONTRACTOR: Siderius Construction LOGGED BY: Joshua Smith TP-3 METHOD: John Deere 50G GW: _ r Uj w = TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit �� Liquid Limit EL ai a zz 0- a�i o } U) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a N o F Water Content • (percent) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 J J J SILT with Sand; medium stiff, dark brown, moist, abundant JJ J 0.8 J J J or antcs TOPSOIL ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... SILT, Silty CLAY, and Lean CLAY; very stiff, brown, grayish brown, and pinkish -brown layers, moist (Laminated Lakebed Deposits) 00 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2.5 .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5 00 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7.5 Silty SAND; medium dense to dense, fine grained, brown, damp to ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... moist . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - Sandy SILT and very moist to wet below 8.5 ft. Test Pit TP-3 terminated at 9 ft. 12.5 ar_, 15 � Al 6 IF 17.5 ..,s r �.•wi .. — S pis ( S �0,4d��a'�'"� �k {� Groundwater not encountered. Figure 3A PAGE 1 of 1 ♦�opesidQ PROJECT: Pioneer Estates PROJECT NO.: 23-414 \\\ Engineering CLIENT: Siderius Construction, LLP DATE: April 27, 2023 LOCATION: See Site Plan. ELEVATION: 2,975 ft SUBCONTRACTOR: Siderius Construction LOGGED BY: Joshua Smith TP-4 METHOD: John Deere 50G GW: _ r Uj w = TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit �� Liquid Limit EL ai a zz 0- a�i o } U) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a N o F Water Content • (percent) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 J J J J J J SILT with Sand; medium stiff, dark brown, moist, abundant J J J JJ J .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... organics (TOPSOIL) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... JJJ 1.3 00 SILT, Silty CLAY, and Lean CLAY; very stiff, brown, grayish do brown, and pinkish -brown layers, moist (Laminated Lakebed 0 Deposits) 2.5 00 .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7.5 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Silty SAND; medium dense to dense, fine grained, brown, damp to moist Test Pit TP-4 terminated at 8 ft. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... m�1 i Ul•:�FL —10 yl. �!r ��` � - �1. M n✓ —15 'r ..,, ... mot: �� • +ti_+, -.; �''^'a,1ry. 1 17.5 t _ e Groundwater not encountered. Figure 4A PAGE 1 of 1 FINAL TRAFFIC NOISE TECHNICAL STUDY FOR KALISPELL BYPASS Project No. NH: 5-3 (59) 109 Control Number 2038 Prepared for: Montana Department of Transportation 2701 Prospect Avenue Helena, MT 59620 August 2006 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Background........................................................................................1-1 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA....................................................................................................2-1 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS...............................................................3-1 3.1 Traffic Noise Model.........................................................................................3-1 3.2 Traffic Model Input Data................................................................................3-2 3.3 Data Coordination..........................................................................................3-8 3.3.1 Ambient Noise Measurements..............................................................3-8 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................4-1 4.1 Existing Noise Levels........................................................................................4-3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..................................................................5-1 5.1 Impacts During Construction (Construction Noise)...................................5-1 5.2 Impacts During Operation (Future Traffic Noise Levels) ............................5-4 6.0 MITIGATION..........................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Mitigation Options...........................................................................................6-1 6.2 Noise Mitigation Barriers Considered...........................................................6-2 6.2.1 Southeast Noise Barrier...........................................................................6-7 6.2.2 Northeast and Northwest Noise Barriers...............................................6-8 6.3 Coordination with Local Government Officials.........................................6-9 6.3.1 Noise Compatible Land Use Planning................................................6-10 7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................7-1 8.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................8-1 TOC-i Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Noise Receivers and Impacts.....................................................................1-2 Figure 2 - Southeastern Proposed Mitigation Area..................................................6-4 Figure 3 - Northwestern and Northeastern Proposed Mitigation Areas ................6-5 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)...................................................2-2 Table 3.1: Traffic Data Input into Noise Model.........................................................3-2 Table 4.1: Ambient/Existing Noise Level Readings...................................................4-3 Table 5.1: FHWA Construction Noise Abatement Criteria......................................5-1 Table 5.2: Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA).........................................5-2 Table 5.3: Traffic Noise Model Results..........................................................................5-5 Table 6.1: Land Use Category B Mitigation...............................................................6-6 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Land Use Maps APPENDIX B: Reasonable and Feasible Checklist - CD APPENDIX C: Noise Model Input and Output Files - CD APPENDIX D: Information for Local Officials TOC-ii Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass KEY TERMS A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure levels in decibels measured with a frequency weighting network corresponding to the A -scale on a standard sound level meter as specified by ANSI S1.4-1971. The A -scale tends to suppress lower frequencies, e.g., below 1,000 Hz and best approximates the sound as heard by the normal human ear. It is the most widely used weighting system for assessing transportation -related noise. Acoustically Representative: A receiver location which represents the same type and magnitude of noise as another location. For good acoustical representation roadway geometry, topography, traffic flow, distance from source to receiver should all be nearly the same. Acoustic Energy: Commonly referred to as sound energy, or just plain energy, acoustic energy is arithmetically equivalent to 10 [sound Pressure Level (SPL)/lo], where SPL is expressed in decibels. (FHWA, Measurement of Highway -Related Noise, 1996, page 5). Ambient Noise: All -encompassing sound that is associated with a given environment, excluding the analysis system's electrical noise and the sound source of interest (FHWA, Measurement of Highway -Related Noise, 1996, page 5). Approach: This term has been defined by MDT as one decibel (dBA) below the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria. Benefited Receptor: A dwelling unit expected to receive a noise reduction of at least 6 dBA from the proposed noise abatement measure, if the dwelling unit is a first -row home. A multi -story residence counts as one benefited receptor even if the proposed noise abatement provides 6 dBA for the exterior (e.g. balconies) of two or more floors or individual units. The definition is primarily used in the determination of noise abatement reasonableness. Second -row homes that receive at least a 4 decibel reduction in noise will be counted as benefited receptors. Apartment complexes of up to 4 units will be counted as one benefited receptor. Date of Public Knowledge: The date that a project is approved, i.e., approval of the final environmental documentation is completed (e.g. Record of Decision). TOC-iii Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): A 24-hour time -averaged sound level, adjusted for average -day sound source operations. In the case of highway noise, a single operation is equivalent to a single vehicle pass -by. The adjustment includes a 10 decibel penalty for vehicle pass-bys occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., local time (FHWA, Measurement of Highway - Related Noise, 1996, page 7) . Decibels (dB): A unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the base 10 logarithm of this ratio. For the purpose of this document, the reference level is 20 pPa, or the threshold of human hearing (FHWA, Measurement of Highway - Related Noise, 1996, page 8). Design Year: The future year used to estimate the probable traffic volume for which a highway is designed. Design year is a time, usually 20 years, from the completion of construction. Existing Noise Level(s): The current noise level, resulting from the natural and mechanical sources and human activity, considered normally present in a particular area. First Row Homes: Homes that will be closest to a noise barrier or berm. Generally, first row homes will experience the highest reduction in noise with the construction of this type of noise abatement. FHWA Type I Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases the number of through -traffic lanes. FHWA Type II Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid project for noise abatement on an existing highway. Impacted Receivers: Receivers - generally residences - that will receive a traffic noise impact from the construction of a project. Insertion Loss: The actual acoustical benefit derived from the construction of a noise barrier. Leq: The equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time -varying sound level during the same time period. Leq(h) is the hourly value of Leq (23 CFR 772.5). TOC-iv Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Federal legislation that establishes environmental policy for the nation. It provides an interdisciplinary framework to ensure that decision -makers adequately take environmental factors into account. Noise Abatement: Various design and/or traffic management measures taken to reduce or eliminate (mitigate) noise impacts. Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC): FHWA determined noise levels for various activities or land uses which represent the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise level conditions. These levels are used to aid in identifying traffic noise impacts. Noise Barrier: Sound walls or earth berms constructed to mitigate noise impacts. Sound walls, if constructed, generally must provide a 7 dBA reduction in noise. Noise Mitigation: See noise abatement, above. Planned, Designed and Programmed: A noise sensitive land use (subdivision, residences, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries) is considered planned, designed and programmed when it has received final development approval (generally the issuance of a building permit) from the local agency with jurisdiction. Noise: Any unwanted sound. Noise Barrier: A solid wall or earth berm, or combination of berm and wall, located between the roadway and receiver location, which breaks the line -or - sight between the receiver and the roadway noise sources. Peak Traffic Hour: Highest hourly traffic volume in a 24-hour period. Predicted Noise Level: Future noise levels, resulting from the natural and mechanical sources and human activities, considered being usually present in a particular area, including the project. Receivers: Locations selected for determining traffic noise impacts. These locations should represent areas where frequent human use occurs or is likely to occur in the foreseeable future (e.g., vacant property for which development plans are planned, designed and programmed). Substantially Exceeds: Design Year noise levels (Leq(h)) which are 13 decibels (dBA) or higher than existing noise levels. TOC-v Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Shielding: Any man-made or natural structure or barrier that provides a visual and/or auditory barrier between receiver and roadway or a portion of roadway. For example, rock outcrops, thick stands or trees, buildings. Traffic Noise Impact: Impact that occurs at a receiver when one or both of the following takes place: The predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level The predicted noise level approaches or exceeds the Noise Abatement Criteria Type I Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through -traffic lanes (23 CFR 772.5). Type II Project: A proposed Federal or Federal -aid highway project for noise abatement on an existing highway (23 CFR 772.5). Vehicle Classes: Includes heavy trucks, medium trucks, automobiles, motorcycles and buses. Heavy trucks include any vehicle having three or more axles and designed for the transportation of cargo. Also included in the class are autos with trailers. Medium trucks include all vehicles having two axles and six wheels designed for the transportation of cargo. Automobiles include all vehicles with two axles and four wheels designed primarily for the transportation of nine or fewer passengers, or transportation of cargo (light trucks with two axles and 4 wheels). Optional vehicle classes of motorcycles and buses are available for use in TNM. Worst -Case Noise Hour: Also called peak noise hour. A period of 60 minutes throughout a 24-hour day that reflects the peak noise hour, usually associated with peak traffic hour, but not in every instance. TOC-vi Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Noise Technical study documents the traffic noise analysis conducted to evaluate the impacts of the design alternative to bypass the City of Kalispell along US 93 beginning at the southern terminus at Reference Post (RP) 109.1, and ending at the northern terminus at RP 115.9 within the city of Kalispell and Flathead County, Montana. The project length of the bypass is approximately 7.6 miles. The US 93 Bypass (bypass) would increase capacity along this section of US 93 and help to reduce the travel times for the traveling public through the City of Kalispell. The noise analysis was prepared as part of the re-evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Study (1993) for US 93 Somers to Whitefish. The noise analysis was completed in accordance with federal policy and guidelines as stated in "Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772)." The main objectives of 23 CFR 772 are "to provide procedures for noise studies and noise abatement criteria, and to establish requirements for information to be given to local officials for use in the planning and design of highways approved pursuant to Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.)." The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has also adopted a Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual (June 2001), which indicates that a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted level of noise approaches or exceeds the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) noise abatement criteria (NAC). "Approaches" is defined as within one A - weighted sound level in decibels (dBA) of the NAC, or 66 Laeg1 h dBA or greater for residential areas, schools, and parks; or when the predicted level substantially exceeds the existing noise level. "Substantial" is defined as 13 dBA or greater. These criteria have been applied to adjacent sensitive land uses as defined in Noise Criteria section of this study. ES-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass The noise impacts predicted for the Build Alternative and No Build Alternative were estimated for the Design Year 2030 using the FHWA's approved noise model, Traffic Noise Model 2.5 (TNM). Traffic volume projections consistent with peak hour volumes were used in the analysis. Traffic volumes were provided by Stelling Engineers, Inc. consultant project design engineers. Noise analyses were conducted at 70 sensitive receivers within the project area for the Build Alternative and No Build Alternative. The bypass would impact an estimated 39 receivers, 19 of these receivers would receive substantial noise increases, 5 would experience noise levels that approach the NAC, and 15 would experience both types of impact. Mitigation of noise impacts was examined for the Build Alternative. Mitigation considerations include shifting the horizontal alignment, depressing the roadway, acquiring real property, managing traffic, and constructing noise barriers. Sixteen of the impacted receivers were evaluated for mitigation measures but not examined further due to access, location, land use or cost. Nineteen of the impacted receivers were evaluated for noise barriers. A public meeting will be held with affected citizens to solicit input regarding mitigation options. The feasibility and reasonableness of each proposed mitigation measure to provide noise abatement for these receivers will be decided on by a multi -disciplinary team consisting of MDT and local representatives. ES-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Noise Technical Study presents the results of the traffic noise analysis conducted to determine potential impacts on noise -sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of the bypass around the City of Kalispell, Montana. The study includes a definition of noise; how to measure noise; traffic noise criteria; the existing noise environment; study methodology used to conduct the noise analysis, including assumptions that were input into the noise model; criteria used to determine impact; and a description of the noise -sensitive areas that were evaluated. The project area was subdivided into two representative noise areas to provide manageable geographic units. Major crossroads were used within each of these areas to further describe geographic area. These areas are identified by land use and existing activities. The Noise Criteria section of this study provides a description of the sensitive area located in the vicinity of the bypass. A description of each representative area is provided in the Methodology and Assumptions section of this study. Figure 1 depicts the representative areas and shows the 70 identified receivers. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluated potential future noise impacts associated with the bypass. The FEIS predicted that noise levels would increase from 1 to 19 dBAs along the bypass between 1993 and 2015. The FEIS identified approximately 28 receivers along Stillwater Road, West Reserve Drive, and the bypass that would approach or exceed FHWA NAC. 1-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Studv for Figure 1 — Noise Receivers and Impacts 1-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass In addition, the FEIS identified another 23 receivers along Stillwater Road, West Reserve Drive, and the bypass that were expected to receive substantial increases in noise levels from 1993 to 2015. Noise mitigation measures were recommended in the FEIS for these impacted areas, and detailed analysis of mitigation measures was recommended to be completed during the final design. While the revised bypass closely follows the alignment proposed in 1994, it has been shifted slightly to the north at the south end and shifted south at the north end. As part of the corridor preservation study, residents of the Country Estates Subdivision north of West Reserve Drive petitioned MDT to conduct a noise study and to consider an alignment shift at the north end, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts to that neighborhood. MDT subsequently conducted the analysis and determined that an alignment shift was warranted to reduce future noise impacts. In addition, several elements that affect the noise analysis have changed since completion of the FEIS: • Access along the bypass has been revised to improve safety by including six grade -separated interchanges rather than an at -grade facility. Other design changes have been proposed that will affect the geometry used in the noise model. • MDT has updated their noise policy: Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual (MDT 2001). FHWA has required the use of the Traffic Noise Model for project analysis versus the use of the older noise model, Stamina, which was used for the FEIS. • Traffic has been updated for 20 years into the future to the design year of 2030. (The FEIS analysis year was 2015). Different traffic volumes and vehicle mix (cars and trucks) affect the noise model input as the source. Development has occurred along the bypass, adding to the number of noise - sensitive properties. 1-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA Sound is created when an object vibrates and radiates part of its energy as acoustic pressure or waves through a medium such as air, water, or a solid object. Sound levels are expressed in units called decibels (dB). Since the human ear does not respond equally to all frequencies (or pitches), measured sound levels (in dB at standard frequency bands) are often adjusted or weighted according to the frequency response of human hearing and the human perception of loudness. The weighted sound level is designated as dBA, and is measured with a calibrated sound level meter. Typical sound levels experienced by people range from about 40 dBA, the daytime level in a typical quiet living room, to 85 dBA, the approximate level produced by a food blender at 3 feet. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The ability of an average individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented. Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA will be barely perceived by most listeners, whereas a 10 dBA change normally is perceived as a doubling of noise levels. The general principle on which most traffic noise acceptability criteria are based is that a perceptible change in noise that is likely to cause annoyance or interference with normal conversation in an outdoor activity area. Several descriptors are used to express noise levels, which correlate with human perception. The FHWA uses the energy equivalent level (Leq) noise exposure descriptor for assessing the impacts of roadway projects. Leq is calculated by averaging the dBA noise levels measured over a specified period of time. The FHWA and MDT assess roadway noise levels in terms of a 1-hour Leq(h), which is the average of instantaneous dBA sound levels measured over a 1-hour period. Use of Leq(h) is appropriate for traffic noise analyses because these levels are 2-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass sensitive to both the frequency of occurrence and duration of transportation noise events. To properly assess noise impacts of roadway projects, noise -sensitive land uses and activities in the vicinity of highway projects must be first identified and analyzed. Anticipated changes in noise levels for these sensitive areas must be identified during design hour conditions when the noise levels are expected to be the highest. Table 2.1 displays the FHWA NAC for varying land activity categories as presented in FHWA's Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guideline (23 CFR 772). These criteria specify noise levels considered to be the upper levels of acceptability for outdoor and certain indoor activities. TABLE 2.1: FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA (NAC) ACTIVITY LaeglhA DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY CATEGORY dBA A 57 (Exterior) Land serving an important public need in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (Exterior) Developed land, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D — Undeveloped land. E 52 (Interior)B Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: 23 CFR 772. A Laeqlh is the 1-hour A -weighted energy equivalent sound level. B The interior sound levels (activity) apply to 1) indoor activities for those parcels of land where no exterior noise -sensitive land use or activity is identified, and 2) those situations where the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that the exterior activities will not be affected by the noise, but the interior activities will be affected. 2-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass The MDT also has a Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual which indicates that a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted level of noise approaches or exceeds FHWA's NAC as follows: • Approach — Design year noise levels (Leq(h)) are predicted to be one decibel (dB) below the levels shown for the land use category in question in the NAC (see Table 2.1). • Substantially exceed — Leq(h) are predicted to increase 13 decibels (dB) above existing levels. Noise abatement measures will be considered when either or both of the above conditions are met. If an impact (exceedance of NAC) is predicted, then FHWA's procedures and MDT Policy indicate that mitigation should be considered. However, the abatement measures must be both reasonable and feasible. According to MDT's policy, "Feasibility deals primarily with engineering considerations (e.g., can a barrier be built given the topography of the location; access, drainage, safety and whether other noise sources are present)." Reasonableness is a more subjective criterion, which includes, but is not limited to, factors such as cost per impacted receiver per decibel reduction in noise, comparison of existing to future noise levels, noise abatement benefits, additional considerations that may include cultural and community values, frequency of use, aesthetics, desires of impacted residents or organizations, development trends and land use controls, life cycle of noise abatement benefits. In an area where development trends are changing from residential to commercial, it won't be reasonable to construct a wall where planned future use would limit the wall's useful life to less than 15 years. 2-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL Projected future noise levels for the "worst case" Build Alternative and for the No Build Alternative were estimated for the Design Year 2030 using the FHWA's approved noise model, Traffic Noise Model (TNM), which estimates the acoustic intensity at a receiver location resulting from traffic (the source) traveling on a series of straight-line roadway segments. Speed -dependent reference noise emission levels and vehicle density by vehicle type define the source characteristics. The roadway segment geometry considered is three- dimensional. The program considers characteristics of the path of noise transmitted between the source and the noise receiver by including the effects of intervening barriers, topography, trees, and atmospheric absorption. The modeling performed for this project included: Northbound and Southbound US 93 mainline and ramps Cross roads of the northbound and southbound lanes of Airport Road, Corporate Drive, Valley View Drive, and Garden Drive • Crossroads of the eastbound and westbound lanes of Sunnyside Drive, Foys Lake Road, US 2, Two Mile Drive, Three Mile Drive, Four Mile Drive, West Reserve Connection, and West Reserve Drive Side roads of a frontage road and loop road in the Northern Section The project area was divided into the following two representative areas to provide manageable geographic units for analysis: Southern Section — US 93 (bypass Southern Terminus) to Three Mile Drive Northern Section — Three Mile Drive to US 93 (bypass Northern Terminus) 3-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TNM was checked against ambient noise level measurements and traffic counts at the existing intersection of US 93 and West Reserve Drive. Acceptable variation between model results and measured noise levels is plus or minus 3 dB. The modeled decibels level were within 2 dBA for the existing condition and therefore validates TNM existing noise levels and predictions. In areas were there was not an existing traffic noise source in close proximity to a representative noise receiver, the ambient monitored noise levels were used for the existing noise level. 3.2 TRAFFIC MODEL INPUT DATA TNM model was run using the following input data and assumptions: TABLE 3.1 : TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L Vehicle Mix % L Vehicle Mix % a Peak a Peak v s Hour v Hour Q E Volume a E E E Volume G) L 1 U Y U N L 1 U 1 U Q o N :E N L 2 Q o Ca N N 2 s U Cn t U GENERAL: Assumed that directional split was 50/50 for worse case noise condition. Assumed all traffic volumes were at Level of Service (LOS) `C' or better. Assumed on all roadways that Peak Hour was 10% of Average Daily Traffic Volume or Number of Vehicles per Day. Existing traffic was derived using a 3.5% growth rate from traffic year 2003 to noise analysis year 2005. Vehicle Mix is assumed to be the same on all roadways with the exception of US 2 and US 93 where 8% truck volume vs. a 5% truck volume was used. Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L Vehicle Mix % L Vehicle Mix % a Peak Q. Peak v Hour v Hour Q. Volume a - E � Sk Volume G1 i. U U N L Sx:; U U Q O N N L 2 fl.. o N N 2 s U s U SOUTHERN AREA Kalispell Bypass (KBP) - b/w US 93 and NA NA NA NA NA 750 60 92 3 5 Sunnyside Drive NB KBP b/w US 93 and Sunnyside Drive SB NA NA NA NA NA 975 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w Sunnyside Drive and Foys Lake NA NA NA NA NA 900 60 92 3 5 Road NB KBP b/w Sunnyside Drive and Foys Lake NA NA NA NA NA 1265 60 92 3 5 Road SB KBP b/w Foys Lake Road and US 2 NB NA NA NA NA NA 1265 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w Foys Lake Road and US 2 SB NA NA NA NA NA 1300 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Two Mile Drive NB NA NA NA NA NA 1175 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Two Mile Drive SB NA NA NA NA NA 1400 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Three Mile Drive NB NA NA NA NA NA 1175 60 92 3 5 KBP b/w US 2 and Three Mile Drive SB NA NA NA NA NA 1400 60 92 3 5 US 93 North of Bypass Terminus NB 836 60 92 3 5 750 60 92 3 5 US 93 North of Bypass Terminus SB 796 60 92 3 5 900 60 92 3 5 US 93 South of Bypass Terminus NB 836 60 92 3 5 1250 60 92 3 5 US 93 South of Bypass Terminus SB 796 60 92 3 5 1750 60 92 3 5 Airport Road NB & SB 390 50 95 3 2 600 50 95 3 2 SB & NB On Ramp at Airport Road NA NA NA NA NA 100 40 95 3 2 SB Off Ramp Airport Road NA NA NA NA NA 225 40 95 3 2 Sunnyside Drive -Northbound Ramp NA NA NA NA NA 50 25 95 3 2 Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L o Vehicle Mix % L o Vehicle Mix % i Peak L Peak v v °- Hour Q- Hour a, Volume a, Volume E E E E i U Ca U i U CB U Gl Q. N Q E U Cn SOUTHERN AREA (CONTINUED) Sunnyside Drive-EB/SB & WB/NB 133 25 95 3 2 50 25 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -East of KBP WB 93 35 95 3 2 400 35 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -East of KBP EB 92 35 95 3 2 170 35 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -West of KBP WB 213 35 95 3 2 460 35 95 3 2 Foys Lake Road -West of KBP EB 213 35 95 3 2 200 35 95 3 2 Corporate Drive NB/SB NA NA NA NA NA 50 25 95 3 2 US 2-East KBP EB 654 35 95 3 2 675 60 92 3 5 US 2-East of KBP WB 654 35 95 3 2 1100 60 92 3 5 US 2-West of KBP EB 654 35 95 3 2 1975 60 92 3 5 US 2-West of KBP WB 654 35 95 3 2 1250 60 92 3 5 Valley View Road -NB & SB 37 25 95 3 2 40 25 95 3 2 Two Mile Drive-EB & WB 37 35 95 3 2 50 35 95 3 2 NB & SB On/Off Ramps at Foys Lake Road NA NA NA NA NA 50 40 95 3 2 NB Off Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 200 40 92 3 5 NB On Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 350 40 92 3 5 SB Off Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 325 40 92 3 5 SB On Ramp at US 2 NA NA NA NA NA 225 40 92 3 5 Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-4 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L o Vehicle Mix % L o Vehicle Mix % L Peak L Peak wHour N Hour Volume E E: Volume E: i �Y U >Y CB U i Y U >Y (B V Gl Q. U 2 N Q � U 2 NORTHERN AREA US 93-North of West Reserve Drive NB 670 60 92 3 5 1150 60 92 3 5 US 93-North of West Reserve Drive SB 670 60 92 3 5 1060 60 92 3 5 US 93-South of West Reserve Drive NB 1212 60 92 3 5 850 60 92 3 5 US 93-South of West Reserve Drive SB 1212 60 92 3 5 545 60 92 3 5 KBP-between West Reserve Drive & West NA NA NA NA NA 925 60 92 3 5 Reserve Connection NB KBP-between West Reserve Drive & West NA NA NA NA NA 850 60 92 3 5 Reserve Connection SB KBP-South of West Reserve Connection NB NA NA NA NA NA 1050 60 92 3 5 KBP-South of West Reserve Connection SB NA NA NA NA NA 1400 60 92 3 5 Frontage Road NA NA NA NA NA 101 40 95 3 2 Garden Drive -NB & SB NA NA NA NA NA 50 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -East of KBP EB NA NA NA NA NA 700 45 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -East of KBP WB NA NA NA NA NA 1000 45 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -West of KBP EB NA NA NA NA NA 700 45 95 3 2 West Reserve Connection -West of KBP WB NA NA NA NA NA 850 45 95 3 2 Loop Road NB NA NA NA NA NA 454 45 95 3 2 Loop Road SB NA NA NA NA NA 284 45 95 3 2 SB On Ramp KBP-West Reserve Connection NA NA NA NA NA 450 45 95 3 2 SB Off Ramp KBP-West Reserve NA NA NA NA NA 150 45 95 3 2 Connection Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-5 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 3.1 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC DATA INPUT INTO NOISE MODEL ROADWAY SPECIFIC: ROADWAY 2005 EXISTING 2030 FUTURE Total L s Vehicle Mix % L t Vehicle Mix % L Peak L Peak wHour N Hour a, a, Volume E: Volume -0 7 � � 7 Y Y � U 2 E U 2 Cn NORTHERN AREA (CONTINUED) NB Off Ramp KBP-West Reserve NA NA NA NA NA 250 45 95 3 2 Connection NB On Ramp KBP-West Reserve NA NA NA NA NA 200 45 95 3 2 Connection West Reserve Drive -East of US 93 EB 627 40 95 3 2 875 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Drive -East of US 93 WB 628 40 95 3 2 865 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Drive -West of US 93 EB 265 40 95 3 2 60 40 95 3 2 West Reserve Drive -West of US 93 WB 265 40 95 3 2 53 40 95 3 2 Stillwater Road -NB & SB 111 35 95 3 2 388 35 95 3 2 NB Off Ramp -Three Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 300 40 95 3 2 SB On Ramp -Three Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 250 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -West of KBP EB 323 40 95 3 2 500 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -West of KBP WB 324 40 95 3 2 900 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -East of KBP EB 323 40 95 3 2 500 40 95 3 2 Three Mile Drive -East of KBP WB 324 40 95 3 2 950 40 95 3 2 NB Off Ramp/SB On Ramp -Four Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 225 40 95 3 2 NB On Ramp -Four Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 75 SB Off Ramp -Four Mile Drive NA NA NA NA NA 150 Four Mile Drive -West of KBP EB & WB NA NA NA NA NA 500 40 95 3 2 Between = NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound, EB = Eastbound 3-6 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Roadway Geometry and Sensitive Receiver Locations Roadway geometry and sensitive receiver locations were established from the roadway plan drawings, aerial photos, and cross sections provided by Stelling Engineers, Inc. The locations of sensitive receivers were identified from field reconnaissance, aerial photography, and existing mapping. Topographic features and elevations were also noted from the electronic files and from field observation and reference. Existing Earth Berms, Jersey Barriers, Privacy Walls, and Building Rows Existing earth berms were not included as there were none identified between a specified roadway segment and a specified receiver. The project area was reviewed for locations where jersey barriers could provide noise attenuation and no locations were identified. Jersey barriers may be proposed along the structures of crossroads, but the barriers were not modeled in TNM because using the barriers would not provide a "worst case" analysis for the Build Alternative. No locations were identified where a concrete privacy wall existed and blocked the line -of -sight from the receiver to the proposed bypass roadway. In locations where a vinyl or wood fence was located between a specified receiver and the proposed bypass roadway, they were not included because gaps in these types of barriers do not provide noise attenuation. There were no building rows input into the model. Terrain features were not used in the noise model as each location that was evaluated indicated a gradual change in topography or the area was predominately flat without much topographic relief. The absence of terrain lines provides a "worst case" analysis for traffic noise impacts. TNM electronic files are included in Appendix C. 3-7 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 3.3 DATA COORDINATION The MDT design consultant, Stelling Engineers, Inc., provided roadway geometry and traffic data. MDT was consulted for locations where traffic noise complaints have been received regarding the bypass within the project limits. Coordination with MDT helped to identify locations and times for field monitoring. 3.3.1 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Ambient or existing noise levels were obtained using methodology presented in the MDT Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Procedure Manual, Appendix A. Existing noise levels were recorded with a Larson -Davis, Model 820, Type I and a CEL 480 Type I integrating sound level meter and readings were taken the week of April 19 and 20, 2005, between the times of 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Traffic, by vehicle class, located on US 93 was counted using a traffic counter during monitoring times to obtain traffic counts for monitoring locations (Monitoring [M]) M1 and M12. Meteorological conditions such as temperature, humidity, and wind speed were recorded before and after each measurement. Other noise sources that were not from traffic along nearby roadways were noted during each measurement. Noise measurements were taken until noise levels during a particular sample timeframe stabilized and a minimum of three measurements were obtained at each monitoring location. Repeat measurements were obtained until the measurements agreed within 1 dBA. Noise meters were calibrated before and after each set of measurements were obtained at each monitoring location. Although the analysis of noise impacts focuses on future traffic noise, these readings establish current noise levels in the project area. 3-8 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Presently, the study area is comprised of a mixture of residential and commercial land uses (see Appendix A). The noise analysis focused on 70 specific receivers identified from sensitive land uses. All sensitive receivers within the study area are classified within activity Category B with the exception of Receivers 21 and 62, which were classified within Category C. These receivers are grouped into southern and northern area and divided out further by major cross streets (see Figure 1). Land use per area is as follows: Southern Section • US 93 (bypass southern terminus) to Sunnyside Drive — Land use north and south of the bypass between existing US 93 and Airport Road is comprised of sparsely located single-family homes (Receivers 1 to 5). Land use northwest and southeast of the bypass between Airport Road and Sunnyside Drive consists of single-family homes (Receivers 6 to 13). Receivers 6 and 7 are located in the Ashley Park Subdivision, Receiver 8 is located in the South Meadows Subdivision, Receivers 8A and 9 are located in the Stratford Village Subdivision, Receiver 10 is located in the Sunnyside Subdivision, and Receivers 11 to 13 are located on privately owned parcels adjacent to Sunnyside Drive. Sunnyside Drive to Foys Lake Road — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between Airport Road and Foys Lake Road and is comprised of low - density residential parcels (Receivers 14 to 19). Receiver 18 is within MDT's right-of-way and was included as a baseline receiver for comparing the measured noise levels with future noise levels. • Foys Lake Road to US 2 — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between Foys Lake Road and US 2. It includes one residential parcel, Receiver 20, located adjacent to Foys Lake Road. US 2 to Two Mile Drive — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between US 2 and Two Mile Drive and is comprised of single-family residences (Receivers 21 to 31). Receivers 23 to 25 are located within the Greenbriar 4-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Subdivision, and the remaining receivers are located on privately owned parcels. Receiver 21 was a single-family home that has been converted to commercial use. • Two Mile Drive to Three Mile Drive — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass and is comprised of single-family homes (Receivers 32 to 36). All receivers in this section are on privately owned parcels adjacent to the bypass and not located in specific subdivisions. Northern Section • Three Mile Drive to Four Mile Drive — This area consists of single-family homes (Receivers 37-56) located east and west of the bypass. Receivers 37, 39, 44, 45, and 48 to 50 are located within the Empire Estates Subdivision, Receiver 38 is located in the Bitterroot Heights Subdivision, Receivers 43, 46, and 52 are located in the Meadowland Subdivision, Receivers 40, 47, 51, and 53 to 56 are located on privately owned parcels adjacent to the bypass but not located in specific subdivisions. Receivers 41 and 42 are located in the Northview Heights Subdivision. • Four Mile Drive to West Reserve Connection — This area consists of land east and west of the bypass between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve Drive and is comprised of the future high school (Receivers 57 and 57A). Receiver 57 is the entrance to the school and Receiver 57A is located within a soccer field. • West Reserve Connection to US 93 (bypass northern terminus) — This area consists of land north and south of the bypass between West Reserve Drive and US 93 is comprised of single- and multi -family residential units (Receivers 58 to 66). Receivers 58 to 61 are located in the Country Estates 1 Subdivision, Receivers 62 and 64 are located in a multi -use area, where Receiver 62 will become multi -family housing and Receiver 64 will become a new department store. Receiver 58A is located on a privately owned parcel on the north side of West Reserve Drive. Receiver 67 is located on the east side of US 93 where future college housing is planned. 4-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass The affected environment is consistent in terms of land use for the No Build and the Build Alternatives. Land use maps from the City of Kalispell are located in Appendix A. 4.1 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Ambient or existing noise level readings were taken at the twelve representative noise -sensitive locations (Monitoring [M]) shown in Table 4.1. The receivers listed are also shown in Figure 1 as identified by the Receiver (R) Number. Additionally, the average recorded noise levels are shown in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1: AMBIENT/EXISTING NOISE LEVEL READINGS MONITORING AVERAGE NOISE STUDY AREA LOCATION DESCRIPTION RECEIVER AMBIENT NOISE LOCATION LEVEL dBA US 93 and Airport Single -Family Home located Road and South of M1 just east of existing US 93 R1 56 Future b ass South of Future Interchange of Airport M2 Single -Family Residence R2 38 Road and Future bypass Between Airport Road Single -Family Residence in and Sunnyside Drive- M3 Ashley Creek Subdivision R7 47 East of Future bypass Between Airport Road Single -Family Residence in and Sunnyside Drive- M4 d Village Stratford Village R8A 48 East of Future bypass Between Airport Road Single -Family Residence in and Sunnyside Drive- M5 Sunnyside Subdivision R10 48 East of Future bypass Southwest Corner of Located just south of future Ashley View Drive and M10 Ashley View Drive in R50 45 intersection of bypass Cottonwood Estates Along West Reserve Located in vicinity of new Connection — West of M11 school R57 42 bypass Located north of US 93 and existing M12 Located at Mountain Villa R65 59 intersection of West Apartments South US 93 Reserve Drive 4-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Environmental consequences of traffic noise consist of impacts to sensitive receivers. These impacts can occur during construction of a roadway improvement project from equipment used during construction, and due to added traffic capacity after the roadway is completed. Below is a discussion of both types of impacts that would result from construction of this project. 5.1 IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION (CONSTRUCTION NOISE) Construction of the project may cause localized, short -duration noise impacts. The MDT traffic noise policy document does not specifically address construction noise. If there is a possibility of impact to noise -sensitive receivers, the policies and standards contained in 23 CFR 772.19 (construction Noise) and FHWA Technical Advisory T6160.2 (Analysis of Highway Construction Noise) are applicable. Table 5.1 lists the noise abatement criteria for different land uses. TABLE 5.1: FHWA CONSTRUCTION NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ACTIVITY CATEGORY Leq(h) Llo (h) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY Land serving an important public need in which serenity and A 57 (exterior) 70 (exterior) quiet are of extraordinary significance, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, B 67 (exterior) 70 (exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (exterior) 75 (exterior) Developed land, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D - - Undeveloped land. E 52 (interior) 55 (interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Note: Leq is the equivalent steady-state sound level that in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time -varying sound level during the same time period. Leq(h) is the hourly value of Leq. Llo is the sound level that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (the 90th percentile) for the period under construction. Llo (h) is the hourly value of Llo. Source: 23 CFR 772.19 5-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Construction times would need to adhere to local City of Kalispell ordinances that specifically indicates that noise from construction does not "... intentionally or unnecessarily disturb(s) the peace of any neighborhood or person by loud or unusual noise.." (City of Kalispell 19-10). Construction equipment noise levels are usually measured at 50 feet from the source, and some typical levels are listed in Table 5.2. Construction equipment noise levels decrease 6 dB per doubling of distance because of geometric divergence alone, provided there is a clear line of sight to the equipment. For example, a bulldozer creating 80 dBA of noise at 50 feet will have an observed value of 74 dBA at 100 feet and 68 dBA at 200 feet. TABLE 5.2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE (dBA) TYPES OF ACTIVITIES TYPES OF EQUIPMENT RANGE OF NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET Materials Handling Concrete Mixer 75-87 Concrete Pump 81-83 Crane moveable 76-87 Crane derrick 86-88 Stationary Equipment Pump 69-71 Generator 71-82 Compressor 74-87 Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrench 83-88 Rock Drill 81-98 Land Clearing Bulldozer 77-96 Dump Truck 82-94 Grading Scraper 80-93 Bulldozer 77-96 Paving Paver 86-88 Dump Truck 82-94 Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Short-term construction noise impacts can be minimized by using standard methods for the control of noise sources during construction. These measures may be grouped generally as follows: 5-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass • Community Relations: Early communication with the general public reduces noise complaints. The public should be informed of any potential construction noise impacts and the measures that will employed to reduce these impacts. Also, a responsive complaint mechanism should be established and publicized for the duration of the project; • Desian Considerations: Early coordination and communication with project designers can greatly aid in locating and sequencing construction operations to minimize potential construction noise impacts at sensitive receivers. Noise elements (i.e., compressors, haul roads) can be located in less sensitive areas, making use of any existing natural or artificial features that can shield the constructions noise. Alternative construction methods can also be employed to lessen potential construction noise impacts (i.e., cast -in -place piles rather than driven piles, rubber -tired equipment rather than steel -tracked equipment). Further, idling equipment should be turned off whenever not in use. Equipment operators should drive forward instead of backward , whenever possible, lift instead of drag materials, and avoid mechanical scraping or banging activities to do work that can be accomplished by quieter manual methods; • Source Control: New construction equipment is generally quieter than older equipment. Special, very quiet types of new equipment are also available. However, specification of the exclusive use of new, quiet construction equipment on a project can be very costly and is usually justifiable only in cases of extremely severe noise impacts. Control of noise from exiting construction equipment is usually limited to requirement for mufflers and continuous good maintenance on all equipment. Additional modifications to construction equipment for noise reduction are usually not reasonable to large increases in cost; • Site Control: Measures to abate highway construction noise can modify the time, place, or method of operation for a particular noise source. The measure most often used is the limitation of work hours on a construction site. Work that does not need to be done at night should be confined to daytime hours. When work must be done at night, the contractor should complete the noisiest work as early in the time period as possible. Building temporary noise barriers or special equipment enclosures is usually quite expensive and limited to instances of severe construction noise impacts. 5-3 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 5.2 IMPACTS DURING OPERATION (FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS) Table 5.3 presents the modeling results for traffic noise generated by the future northbound and southbound (four total) lanes of the US 93 bypass and crossroads. The existing noise levels were obtained either from TNM or field monitoring. As noted in the Noise Criteria section of this study, MDT Policy states that noise impacts on sensitive receivers (residences, schools, public open spaces, etc.) would require consideration of noise mitigation when the predicted noise level exceeds the 2003 existing noise level by 13 dBA, or more, or when the predicted noise level is greater than 66 Laeg1 h dBA. The table reveals that noise levels are predicted to increase from 0 to 27 dBAs, which is similar to the FEIS predictions. The modeling identifies that the bypass would impact an estimated 39 receivers, a decrease in the number of impacts reported in the FEIS, 19 of these receivers would receive substantial noise increases, while 5 would experience noise levels that approach the NAC, 15 would experience both types of impact. Figure 1 shows these estimated impacts. 5-4 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 5.3: TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL RESULTS RECEIVER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONA EXISTING (2005) NOISE LEVEL TNM *MONITORED LEVEL FUTURE (2030) NOISE LEVEL: MODELED Laeqlh (dBA) SHADING= IMPACTC MDT APPROACH LEVEL (A) OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE ($) OR BOTH (B) INCREASE OVER EXISTING LEVEL MITIGATION CONSIDERED � 1 SFR 53/56 68 A 12 No 2 SFR 38* 63 S 25 No 3 SFR 38* 64 S 26 No 4 SFR 51 59 - 8 No 5 SFR 52 60 - 8 No 6 SFR 47* 64 S 17 Yes 7 SFR 47* 65 S 18 Yes 8 SFR 48* 55 - 7 No 8A SFR 48* 64 S 16 Yes 9 SFR 48* 63 S 15 Yes 10 SFR 48* 63 S 15 Yes 11 SFR 48* 59 - 11 No 12 SFR 48* 60 - 12 No 13 SFR 45 66 B 21 No 14 SFR 46 59 S 13 No 15 SFR 55* 58 - 3 No 16 SFR 55* 57 - 2 No 17 SFR 55* 57 - 2 No 18 p 55* 70 B 19 No 19 SFR 46 57 - 11 No 20 SFR 47 58 - 11 No 21 C 55* 66 - 11 No 22 SFR 51 63 - 12 No 23 p 49* 61 - 12 No 24 SFR 49* 59 - 10 No 25 SFR 51 56 - 5 No 5-5 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 5.3 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL RESULTS RECEIVER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONA EXISTING (2005) NOISE LEVEL TNM *MONITORED LEVEL FUTURE (2030) NOISE LEVEL: MODELED Laeglh (dBA) SHADING= IMPACTC MDT APPROACH LEVEL (A) OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE (S) OR BOTH (B) INCREASE OVER EXISTING LEVEL MITIGATION CONSIDERED 9 26 SFR 47 56 - 9 No 27 SFR 40 61 S 21 No 28 SFR 49* 59 - 10 No 29 SFR 49* 62 S 13 No 30 SFR 46 66 B 20 No 31 SFR 46 67 B 21 No 32 SFR 47 60 S 13 No 33 SFR 41 61 S 20 No 35 SFR 43 56 S 13 No 36 SFR 56 60 - 4 No 37 SFR 50 58 - 8 No 38 SFR 61* 63 - 2 No 39 SFR 47 69 B 22 Yes 40 SFR 43 62 S 19 Yes 41 SFR 40 67 B 27 Yes 42 SFR 45* 64 S 19 Yes 43 SFR 45* 61 S 16 Yes 44 SFR 45* 66 B 21 Yes 45 SFR 45* 66 B 21 Yes 46 SFR 45* 57 - 12 No 47 SFR 45* 68 B 23 Yes 48 SFR 45* 68 B 23 Yes 49 SFR 45* 66 B 21 Yes 50 SFR 45* 67 B 22 Yes 51 SFR 45* 67 B 22 Yes 5-6 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass TABLE 5.3 (CONTINUED): TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL RESULTS RECEIVER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONA EXISTING (2005) NOISE LEVEL TNM *MONITORED LEVEL FUTURE (2030) NOISE LEVEL: MODELED Laeglh (dBA) SHADING= IMPACTC MDT APPROACH LEVEL (A) OR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE (S) OR BOTH (B) INCREASE OVER EXISTING LEVEL MITIGATION CONSIDERED 9 52 SFR 45* 58 - 13 No 53 Church 45* 60 S 15 No 53A MFR 45* 65 B 20 Yes 54 SFR 45* 62 S 17 No 55 SFR 48 58 - 10 No 56 SFR 45* 56 - 11 No 57 School 42* 73 B 31 No 57A School 59* 67 A 8 No 58 SFR 59 66 A 7 No 58A SFR 59* 67 A 8 No 59 SFR 56 52 - -4 No 60 SFR 59 50 - -9 No 61 SFR 57 55 - -2 No 62 Future C 52 59 - 7 No 63 MFR 64/59 64 - 0 No 64 MFR 62 70 A 8 No 65 MFR 63 64 - 1 No 66 SFR 54 57 - 3 No 67 MFR 48 64 S 16 No A The receiver number corresponds to the receiver location displayed in Figure 1. The number 34 was intentionally not used. B Laeglh is the one -hour A -weighted energy equivalent sound level Lae(h) C The shading indicates that the noise levels will exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (67 dBA) and/or the criteria stated in the MDT Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual (66 dBA). SFR = Single -Family Residential MFR = Multi -Family Residential P = Open Space or Park C = Commercial 5-7 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 6.0 MITIGATION 6.1 MITIGATION OPTIONS MDT Policy states that noise impacts on sensitive noise receivers (residences, schools, public open spaces, etc.) require consideration of noise mitigation. Mitigation considerations include shifting the horizontal alignment, depressing the roadway, acquiring real property, managing traffic, and constructing noise barriers. The applicability of these options are as follows: • Shifting the horizontal alignment of the roadway from impacted sites. This option involves increasing the distance between the roadway (source) and the affected land use or activity (receiver), thereby reducing the noise levels for the receiver. As mentioned previously, the northern section of the bypass has been shifted from its original alignment. This mitigation option has been applied where practicable to meet the project design requirements. • Depressing the roadway. This option places the mainline of the highway below the level of the surrounding terrain to minimize noise impacts. The cost of roadway excavation, additional roadway drainage, and operational changes must be considered. This option was considered in a few areas and results are presented in Section 6.2. • Managing traffic (detouring trucks, reducing speed, etc.). Truck and/or speed restrictions may be evaluated as a means to mitigate noise in some extreme cases. Such restrictions are not recommended when in conflict with the intended use of the roadway or when creating unreasonable delay or hardship to the motoring public. Applying these restrictions would be contrary to the project purposes of reducing congestion on existing US 93 and improving safety. Therefore, this option is not being evaluated further. • Constructing noise barriers between traffic and impacted receivers. The most widely used roadway noise mitigation technique involves the construction of noise barriers. Barriers can consist of walls, berms, or a combination of both. Noise barriers are considered when feasible and reasonable conditions are met. Current FHWA noise barrier design procedures result in barrier heights that often do not intercept noise emitted from the vertical exhaust pipe (exhaust stack) of 6-1 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass trucks. For design purposes, the noise barrier shall intercept the line of sight from the exhaust stack of a truck to the receiver. The truck stack height is assumed to be 11.5 feet above the pavement. As shown in Table 5.3, impacted receivers were considered for mitigation, the evaluation of mitigation options and three general areas that were evaluated for noise barriers are discussed below. 6.2 NOISE MITIGATION BARRIERS CONSIDERED Potential noise mitigation barriers were considered for each of the residential model receiver locations that are predicted to exceed the MDT criteria. For each of the impacted receivers, mitigation measures were evaluated while considering reasonable and feasible mitigation. For a definition of reasonable and feasible, refer to the Noise Criteria Section. The threshold of noise reduction, which determines a "benefited" residence, is 6 dBA. Some of these barriers considered reduce the noise level greater than 5 dBA and others less than 5 dBA. MDT policy indicates that mitigation barriers for commercial properties and isolated residential receivers generally will not be considered reasonable to provide noise abatement. Therefore barriers were not considered for any businesses or isolated residential receivers. Based on the results of the TNM Model results: • Receivers 1 to 3, 13, 14, 27, 29 to 35, 53, and 54 are isolated receivers where the cost of the providing noise abatement would exceed the allowable limit and not be reasonable. • Receiver 18 is an open space area within MDT right-of-way and therefore was not considered for mitigation. 6-2 Final Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass • Receivers 57, 57A, 58 and 58A experience more traffic noise impacts from the West Reserve Connection rather than the bypass. Due to access along West Reserve Drive, a 6 dBA insertion loss would not be achievable with barriers and therefore noise mitigation would not be feasible. • Receiver 64 receives traffic noise from the existing US 93 and is surrounded by commercial land use. Due to access requirements for surrounding land use, a 6 dBA insertion loss could not be achieved with barriers and therefore noise mitigation would not be feasible. • Receivers 6 to 10, 39 to 45, 47 to 52, and 53A were examined for mitigation of noise impacts using noise barriers and/or depressing the roadway grade of the bypass. The results are presented in Table 6.1. Barriers are intended to mitigate impacts to representative receivers, which include first- and second -row residences. Noise barriers cannot completely eliminate noise. Noise barriers along a highway are only effective for homes within 300 feet of the highway. Beyond that, noise barriers are less effective, but the natural decrease in noise with distance usually reduces noise levels. The exact noise barrier heights and locations will be finalized during the design process. Decisions on exact barrier locations will need to consider local streets, right-of-way limits, utilities and maintenance vehicle access, and landowner input. For modeling purposes, heights of barriers proposed along the US 93 mainline and ramps were measured from the roadway outer edge of pavement elevation on cut and fill sections. Heights of barriers proposed at the MDT right- of-way line were measured from ground elevation. The locations of potential mitigation barriers are shown on Figures 2 and 3 Northern and Southern Proposed Mitigation Areas, and the mitigation conclusions are summarized in Table 6.1. Checklists for each of the impacted areas for Reasonable and Feasible Considerations are in Appendix B. 6-3 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypas. Figure 2 — Southeastern Proposed Mitigation Area 14 'J 7 \ \\ v Legend • Proposed Alignment Kalispell City Limits (As otJan 2006) • stations Noise Receiver Type JINImpacted Receiver \ Non -Impacted Receiver Noise Barrier Option A Noise Barrier Option B Noise Barrier Option C gure 2 Southeastern Proposed Mit gation Area$ r— -- Illllir u nr� F. 38 ©® 3 .00 y.i�,, r _ •_ E_� 6-4 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypas. Figure 3 — Northwestern and Northeastern Proposed Mitigation Areas 50 ❑® 49 ao oo• 88 00 48 8 00 8 00 44 Legend Proposed Alignment Kalispell City Limits (As otJan 2006) • stations Noise Receiver Type Q N Impacted Receiver QNon -Impacted Receiver Noise Barrier Option A Noise Barrier Option B Noise Barrier Option C Figure 3 Northwestern and Northeastern° Proposed Mitigation Areas Ashley View Dr. 82 U M M M C Three Mile Dr. -71 6-5 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Studv for Kalispell BvDass TABLE 6.1: LAND USE CATEGORY B MITIGATION EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR NOISE BARRIERS 2023 BARRIER DIMENSIONS BARRIER TOTAL UNITS 2023 MITIGATED BARRIER COST APPROXIMATE TOTAL BARRIER SEGMENT RECEIVER BENEFITED UNMITIGATED NOISE INSERTION CEI COMMENTS ID NUMBER ID (SECOND NOISE LEVEL LEVEL LOSS MAINLINE HEIGHT (@$25.00 Row) (d BA) (dBAJ (d BA) STATIONS AND (FEET) PLANNING LENGTH (FEET) COST) SOUTHEAST OPnON (SE) NOISE BARRIER WITHOUT R6 ROADWAY 3 (2) GRADE DEPRESSED 64 56 8 28+50.04- 6-8 A —SE 29+18.68(225) R7 23 65 57 8 29+1 Noise 1 & 2 $1,424,947 $4,269 R8A 6 64 58 6 barrier 43+7895 .4790) ( 10 R10 0 (11) 63 55 g 1 R6 3(2) 64 56 8 28+95.76 6-10 29+87.18 (300) R7 23 65 56 9 29+95.76- 12 OPnON R8A 6 64 57 7 B—SE 43+33.44(4388) $1,417,444 $3,571 Noise 2 barrier R10 3 (11) 63 56 8 43+33.44- 6-10 SOUTHEAST (SE) NOISE BARRIER WITH ROADWAY GRADE DEPRESSED 44+02.05 (225) R6 3 2 64 54 10 OPnON R7 23 65 55 10 R8 (1) 55 49 6 C—SE 1 30+32.64- 10 $91,777 $863 R8A 6 64 56 8 Noise 41+50.97 (3668) barrier R9 8 63 54 9 R10 3 11 63 56 7 [NE) NOISE 1 BARRIER WITHOUT R40 ROADWAY 1 GRADE DEPRESSEDNORTHEAST 62 53 9 82+3195 6-10 83+00.91 (226) R41 5 4 67 53 14 OPnON R42 4 (4) 64 56 8 A -NE R43 6 61 53 8 Noise 834. 0091- $1,079,725 $1,559 R47 16 68 56 12 barrier 2 93+27.53 (3367) 12 R51 4 67 60 7 R52 1 58 52 6 R53A 25 9 65 57 8 1 R40 1 62 53 9 82+31.95- 6-10 83+00.91 (226) R41 3(4) 67 60 14 OPnON R42 7 64 56 8 B-NE R43 6 61 53 8 83+00.91- 14 $1,237,820 $1,642 R47 15 68 55 13 Noise 2 93+04.70 (3292) barrier R51 4 67 58 9 R52 1 58 52 6 R53A 31(9) 65 57 8 93+04.70- 12 93+27.53 75 NORTHEAST [NE) NOISE BARRIER WITH R40 ROADWAY1 62 56 6 R41 5 67 57 10 OPnON R42 6 64 57 7 C- NE 1 R43 2 61 54 7 82+54.89- 10 $899,770 $1,510 R47 15 68 56 12 Noise 93+27.53 (3518) barrier R51 5 67 57 10 R52 1 58 51 7 R53A 32 65 58 7 R39 •11 69, 58 11 OPnON 82+31.95- R44 6 9 66 59 7 R45 7 (8) 66 55 11 A-NW 91+67.75 (3069) 12 R48 4 68 58 10 Noise 1 & 2 $974,725 $1,793 R49 4 66 60 6 barrier R50 8(2) 67 53 14 91+67.75- 10 91+7025 (8) R39 11 69 56 13 OPnON 82+31.95- 12 R44 6 9 66 56 10 R45 7(8) 66 57 9 B-NW 1 88+02.51 (571) Noise $933,446 $3,057 R48 4 68 57 11 88+02.51- barrier 2 R49 4 66 58 8 91+22.05 14 R50 BARRIER 8 (2) WITH ROADWAY 67 GRADE66 53 14 NORTHWEST (NW) NOISE R44 6 59 1 82+54.89- 10 R45 7 66 55 11 1 88+7122 (2022) Wrapping wall to north R48 3 68 57 11 OPnON near R50 did not 2 R49 4 66 56 10 88+7122 12 C-NW $700952 $1710 reduce the insertion Noise 90+08.02 (448) , , loss any greater than barrier extending the wall to 3 R50 8 (2) 67 58 9 90+76.02- 10 the north. 90+08.02 (2022) CEI = Generally for land use Category B and primarily for residences, a reasonable cost of noise abatement can be considered by calculating a Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) which takes into consideration the insertion loss the barrier will provide and the number of benefited receivers. 6-6 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass A planning level cost of $25.00 per square foot was used to calculate the cost of a noise barrier. Actual square footage costs for barrier construction may be different during final engineering design. The total barrier cost does not include utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, material fill or excavation. If pertinent parameters change substantially during the final project design, the preliminary noise barriers design may be changed or eliminated. A final decision on the construction of the noise abatement will be made during the final project design with landowner input. 6.2.1 SOUTHEAST NOISE BARRIER Noise modeling predicted that Receivers 6 through 10 would be impacted by the future build alternative. Three options were evaluated for a noise barrier for 5 receivers at 3 subdivisions. Ashley Park (R6 & R7), South Meadows (R8), and Stratford Meadows (R8A, R9 & R10) (see Figure 2). For Options A and B without the roadway grade depressed the location is northeast of the bypass, between Airport Road and Sunnyside Drive, beginning near Station 28+50 and continuing northeast along the right-of- way to Station 43+78. For barrier Option C the location would begin at Station 30+33 and continue northeast along the right-of-way to Station 41 +51. The length of the barrier for Option C is shorter than Options A & B and yield a CEI that is lower, but does not include costs associated with excavation of the roadway grade. The barrier height for all options ranges from 10 tol2 feet; would reduce noise levels at, or just below, the MDT impact level of substantial increase by 6 to 14 dBA; and would benefit both first row and second row residences adjacent to the bypass right-of-way. 6-7 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 6.2.2 NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST NOISE BARRIERS Noise modeling predicted that Receivers 39 through 45, 47 through 52 and 53A would be impacted by the future build alternative (see Figure 3). Noise barriers are proposed on both sides of the bypass between Three Mile Drive and Ashley View Drive where the average right-of-way width is 262 feet. Research has shown that the reduction of the effectiveness of the noise barriers located parallel to each other is linked to the ratio of the separation (width) between the barriers and the average height of the barriers (FHWA 1998). Should the decision to construct barriers be made in this location further analysis should be conducted during final design to determine if the barriers effectiveness is reduced. An initial model run for this location, with the roadway grade depressed, indicates that a maximum 14-foot high noise barrier with the roadway depressed yields the same insertion loss as predicted by TNM on the east side of the bypass, but reduces the overall insertion as predicted by TNM loss by 1 dBA on the west side of the bypass. Northeast Noise Barrier Three options were evaluated for a noise barrier for 7 receivers at 3 subdivisions: Northview Heights and nearby privately owned parcels (R40 through 43), Phase 3 Empire Estates (R47, 50, 51) and Northland (R53A). For Options A & B without the roadway grade depressed the location is east of the bypass, between Three Mile Drive and to north of Ashley View Drive, beginning near Station 82+31 and continuing north along the right-of-way to Station 93+27 (see Figure 3). For barrier Option C the location begins at Station 82+54 and continues north along the right-of-way to Station 93+27. The length of the barrier for Option C is shorter than Options A & B and yields a Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) similar to Option .: FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass A, however, excavation costs of the roadway grade were not included. During final design the relationship of the location of the bike path and the Ashley View Drive crossing to the noise barrier would need to be considered. Lightweight barriers on structure (i.e. bridges) may be necessary to achieve an effective continuous noise barrier in the vicinity of Receivers 50 and 53A. The barrier height for all options ranges from 10 tol4 feet; would reduce noise levels at, or just below, the MDT impact level of substantial increase by 6 to 14 dBA and below the NAC. The barrier would benefit both first row and second row residences adjacent to the bypass right-of-way. Northwest Noise Barrier Three options were evaluated for a noise barrier, to mitigate noise impacts to 6 receivers at the Phase 1 and 2 of Empire Estates (R39, 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50) subdivision. For Options A & B without the roadway grade depressed the location is west of the bypass, between Three Mile Drive and Ashley View Drive, beginning near Station 82+31 and continuing north along the right-of-way to Stations 91+70 and 91+22. Option C begins at Station 82+54 and continues north along the right-of-way to Station 90+08 (see Figure 3). The CEI for all three options is similar, however, excavation costs of the roadway grade are not included. The barrier height for all options ranges from 10 tol4 feet; would reduce noise levels at, or just below, the MDT impact level of substantial increase by 6 to 14 dBA and below the NAC and would benefit both first row and second row residences adjacent to the bypass right-of-way. 6.3 COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS The results of this noise analysis should be considered for development or redevelopment of land parcels along the bypass so that the information can be used in guiding local land use decisions. Land directly adjacent to the bypass .• FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass has noise levels that are generally not suitable for residential development without the use of noise -reducing construction methods. Setback distances and noise contours and additional information for local officials may be found in Appendix D. MDT encourages noise compatible land use planning. 6.3.1 NOISE COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING Highway traffic noise should be reduced through a program of shared responsibility. Noise barriers are often not the answer to highway traffic noise impacts. Barriers can be aesthetically unpleasing, are physically restrictive and are often not practical for Montana's rural landscape. The costs incurred by the state transportation agencies for barriers take money away from other highway needs. Land developers should be required, or at least encouraged, to implement "noise compatible" development in their projects. One example is to provide green belts, open space or parkland between residential developments and busy or high-speed roadways. Also, landscaped berms, often incorporating bike or pedestrian pathways, can reduce noise impacts while providing an aesthetically pleasing entrance or boundary to residential developments. Subdivisions can be designed such that service alleys and/or bike paths are located between residents and highways, providing slightly more distance between residences and roadways. In higher density housing, garages, carports, or storage sheds should back up to highways. Developers can choose more sound -absorbent materials in construction (refer to the FHWA publication: The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use); use brick exterior highway -facing surfaces and design homes with non -sensitive rooms facing the road) and design the 6-10 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass highway -side of residential structures without windows. Solid masonry fences (with no decorative gaps or holes) reduce noise much more effectively than wood stockade or slat fences. Rows of trees or bushes can provide a visual buffer between homes and highways, even though they will not provide noise abatement. Commercial buildings, parking lots, garages and other non -noise sensitive land uses planned between residents and highways are excellent ways to buffer noise in mixed use neighborhoods. Noise barriers are not practical in most areas of Montana where low -density population and spectacular scenery are the primary reason many people choose to live in Montana. Noise compatible land use planning has positive effects on a development's aesthetics, property value, and the quality of life for residents, and preserves Montana's visual resources. 6-11 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 7.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS The traffic noise evaluation and modeling effort described above indicated the noise levels for the future bypass Build Alternative (design year 2030) will increase relative to existing noise levels. The areas of higher density single-family housing that would experience these increases in noise levels are concentrated mostly on the northeast side of the bypass between Airport Road and Sunnyside Drive and on the east and west side of the bypass between Three Mile Drive and Ashley View Drive. These areas, as well as all other impacted noise receivers, were evaluated for noise mitigation (abatement) . Proposed mitigation areas have been evaluated in three general areas. The proposed barrier locations and height ranges are preliminary only and may change, as the roadway design is finalized. These potential barriers are shown in Figures 2 and 3 and Table 6.1, and were discussed in the Noise Mitigation Barriers Considered section of this study. Even with noise barriers, residents within 500- 1,000 feet of a highway will likely be able to hear noise generated by traffic. Noise barriers are designed to reduce noise levels to a tolerable level. Noise barriers cannot completely eliminate noise. Noise barriers along a highway are only effective for homes within about 300 feet of the highway. Beyond that, noise barriers are less effective, but the natural decrease in noise with distance usually reduces noise levels. Substantial changes in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the bypass as roadway final design progresses will require additional noise impact analyses and mitigation evaluation. The decision to provide noise abatement for a highway project is made by a multidisciplinary team of MDT and local representatives with input from affected landowners. Their decision will be based on careful consideration of the Reasonable and Feasible criteria. 7-1 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass A Noise Abatement Recommendation Checklist will be filled out in consideration of noise abatement. The checklist is found in Appendix B. The final noise abatement decision is a product of public input as well as the preliminary noise abatement decision. 7-2 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass 8.0 REFERENCES Carter & Burgess, Inc., Kalispell Bypass Feasablity Study. October 1993 City of Kalispell. 2006. Zoning Maps and City Ordinances. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/MT/Kalispell/index.htm Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. Traffic Noise Model Version 2.1 User's Guide (Addendum February 2003). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). January 1998. Traffic Noise Model User's Guide. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). May 1996. Measurement of Highway - Related Noise. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). June 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). June 1992. Reasonableness and Feasibility of Abatement. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). December 1991. 23 CFR Part 772. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. 23 CFR 771.135, Section 4(f) Final Rule. Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA). 1982a. Stamina 2.0: Users Manual. Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA). 1982b. Reasonableness and Feasibility of Abatement. 8-1 FINAL Project NH 5-3 (59) 109 Traffic Noise Technical Study for Kalispell Bypass Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). June 2001. Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manual. Stelling Engineers, Inc., Traffic Forecasting Report & Amendment. November 2004, March 2005, June 2005. Stelling Engineers, Inc., Preliminary Geometric Report. November 2004. Stelling Engineers, Inc., Conceptual Plans. May 2005 and September 2005. U.S. Government. 1991 Federal Register, 23 CFR, Part 772. 8-2 APPENDIX A: LAND USE MAPS Figure 17. MAP EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY -JANUARY, 2003 DiLy of Kalispell Planning Juftdictlon W Rrzsser-e.Dr Reserve Dr 4 Mlk� Lvr 8 v5e-67 US-2 Foys Uiko! Rd a Resource and Analpgis Sect on K.dispell Growth PoUcy, Fcbruary 2003 79A co :5 C"11 Ch D . 1'. Pk* dohx W,4 W -ug CC r, Kurz 178- LEDGFM DCSTING LAND USE NIVE TORY e , VA ARY, The in ri r n r -W 48 - Ed uss for 43s .J;V f- ime%f my m,?,ptarkm� by Wxtteaze dudrg M-o;6fr sbPm' e 2002 F-d J--,�Au vy of WG'* c -d ird swn arm off'dev of ik* KE' 3jnla Ucy LkTft Ths Ted" ' -L--I i'*', £dans, f ci' t{-'a, (` -n'.-�B Poier(lal 4+€ y Moo Ame. A laros ex*�•S' repl v.*1i C GSJ E.a E'.Y• `-'ra*h•2 C&I Rw'✓ V*W'3 + o Pjvd C '-d C. 1"rW,W Ram Ing Crff=, 17 2nd S&W- Es*, Sufte 211, :-Y,!!54I= MT 5M 1 ( )751_1M if��:� ], Proposed Aram U.S. Higf wanj 93 Bypass (includes banks and firtanclak institu�io ) I- fight ir`dusW8.f (Equiprnel K sales, lumber mils, ra road, at .) Professional Medical Faciity/FaclIties (H- cxsprWs, Physicians and Veterinmy Offlom etc.) Pro iona! Offi/Cf-ffioas (Attme, A€x*untarft, Real i w e, c . DLJr-?[eX (2 resid+ n-'Liaf units) Sl ,gxo Farriiy Resdeal al Mobile Home Park - (4 or more mobile homy un�s Home Business Government FaeA / QuasWublic (City, Counicy, We aced Federal Govemment Offlos or fa.cicr ) ubiily mmuni`y vialis, Ift moons, waler and sewer faciideg, etc.) Schools, Churchq , f s%um . aind r'fier muni y. facilriles Public - P ,,kq-, aid Opanspaoe (horn ers �pvafp common areas, cor➢,-,3rvzAon easements. etc.) m'e�y = Vag . Lid 0&1 '� Figure 16a. SEND Feblvuary 20, 2003 LEGEND B-1 Nllalghbotb� Bier C31ia -- 46 aom B-2 Genera! l tr - 295 acm B-2 PUD Gontare'DwInew wfth Planned UNK i #opmerft Ov6My - 59 aores B-3 Communi-ty Su-ir -148 acres i Ceifiral Bmi 122 acm !-1 Light indusWal - 98 acres R 1 Suburhe-) Resid € al - 43 F�,,- es R-2 Sirig le F&rnlly Reslx r�alr - 63 aom PUD Single Famlly Reg�de[1 W - 14 R-3 Urban Stele Family ReWde,fflaJ- 789 acres R-4 Two i arrWy ResId,&n r*l - 704 &ores R-4 PUD Two # arTi3iy RWkJzffi&! wrch Planned Unr. Dsveloprmrd Overtay - 160 amea RA -I Low Derafty R"denfW ApeAmi'1t - 446 awes RA-1 PUB Lcw Darofty R8e?dwYdal Applment wfth Planned Unit Dsvebpmrd Orley- 12 RA-2 High 133r a y Resit e! AperhmnI - 21 acm PUD Mlli ii-famliy ReslderdW - 6 aores RA-3 ReWanfia! Ap&,-trrv--i LVOfk* - 45 at ResaLuce and Analysiq Sectan ka Fpeii Growth Policy, February 2W3 PkI d: !r 2/2D103 78A71r=99 Fi m I.C. MAP IT'S OF KALI PFLI/PI ANNI'NG JURISDICTION ZONING DESIGNATIONS February 20, 200 a � Dr $, --T�_- r I k r Irk SbegTk x� Cm—N .yT w W � rriIles Resource and Analysis Section KaHspeU Growth Policy, Fcbtuaty !;OQ3 Plot date; 2/2WO3 77A � pb5~&dW9 J Y' ig are 18a- UDGEND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE POTENTIAL UTILITY SERVICE AREAS LEGEND 7Q,SFrg0ri6 POTENTIAL UTILITY SERVICE AREA - APPROX 21,145 ACRES COMMERCIAL - 1,693 acres NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - 57 acres INDUSTRIAL -1,200 acres URBAN MIXED USE - 947 ACRES PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE -1,192 acres URBAN RESIDENTIAL - 6,493 acres SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL -- 8,199 acres HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 522 acres 0 SUBURBAN AGRICULTURAL 4172 acres ■ ii�'I I' FEBRUARY 1 S, 2003 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BOUNDARY- 3,672 acres (overlaps other use designabcns) FLOODWAY - 679 acres 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN - 3,309 acres (overlaps ether use designations) R,-Rource and Analysts Section KaJispoli Grbwgi Policy, Februar-v 2003 64A I 1 I I 1 4 4 4 4 KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY FUTURE LAND USE MAP ' s 5l f d Jdj _ d 0 • r I �u ff LEGEND Future land use desl;Zftns kx0cated on tf'ds rxip arr wiry app!lCoblr when a property is prr'�posed for arrwxetion and do nvf Fmve any efreet orr Fantle exxier' roman#y, JvrtCd ofth regard to zavY 7, density, scAxR� or other land use dtdsfans. A CM OF KALtSPELL / PLANNING JURISDICTION BOUNDARY POTEWLAL Ul`IL1 tY SERVICE AREA iAriYO, o! xxs, ate, mbmd use, r 4 rd�Q1Rh C�nn�si (rVvkrs, dnOM ihfat d n!W to WFW11 she raE�atihvrNW) Neighborhood Plan Area rrtd�-AfW E7". Highway Communtty Entrance (--We, man, Lin Pffxed Use Area Major Arbarial Strom (dFxw, reo6amee, WTemdmrrsrrx l & krdudoial) Wr;t Cx:zsrcy s�senmal Minor-Arenal Strom (ems"-j Fsmsly" "Fred omce) Caiiector• Stress (ty9k:0y ® to CFO d>=eltrW prr gro= oar) Proposed Alternate U S Highway 93 Ur..-:. . ii.e3idesir.a! .,., uing+er rur:fEFy area rm, Y rra, ranseya � rrr Highwap gun -Ai M dam lkms (e1f-ClIdy 3 to L2 &V*MrIp pg' gM&5 etre) are nat yII--' cnrmtr , atxsr?sart d Rgs arytW (cr g-e &ms w r a (ram m eas el a ftaMeqrs per ) 100 Year FloWplain PUW!C Medway ( , pweirs, pubes ) 'SuLur6an Agr€eult iri l Land / 74T� Land Slopes 30% or greater FEOXILUkRY 18, 2003 I logo ll��j��line I NONE ����������1E Now I low U0110as UJE)qlnos r 0+99 0 LE 00+9c 0+6E 0+017 �0+4ti a . s4t.\ mr up xCyC�aypjjj: l�� v i a ie�s ;a 'Tow LU �a t vloll S 1 i 3 p i '']J_yq• �i �. 9 � 3 � �� w tra '- � IN � o+a sxpp: { n N TTe1al � �r 3i=eec:eci i'x?c3ii=zi'skki is aE39i3$Ei9 c g Xi1Y% ,[ wa r-, �woav-vy WWH) mi 101111111 ab rRI f. co 'd ,...859[ONO w Rd ONIMId 113611a 0 6�..IC M 9COz-a-Tz' '--. - — ' V:iV-l-■s4VYl V_y'/Ri'rtY_l �cna.�emu.aa• .-gas •..• iarw-r.a-fa-.o..+ Be — dell field S10619H M;9lAgIJON aaS h'C.1 "00+€8 CWN -6a £�MN 1J EV�—'Il�+tiB den jeld A..ieuluulla�d �6£MN _ �� sa�e�s3 a�ldu�3 aag 00+99 a__L£MN a--9£MN mm MN 1 k� .00+98 III MN r 00+L8 v 00+99 VON 3 L� S 43N /• 00 8 -� OZ3N, 'r-- ZZ3N VON— -- den field �ueuluj.jaad d a _ sa}e�s3 aal ua� a S LZ3N r -- den jeid �JeulwllaJd i 6Z3N ` 00+Z6 �£5 pUelW]JoN aaS 0£3 N _-- ' S OO+E6 6£3N------- I Z£3N 00+vf- I lei 1 1� MN uogo9S uaay:PoN ec 13 05 o6 q117T n 7- l� ON �Yll low /y 40 f~� Op v OF K BY: S SURVEYrNr R#C. r �I 'fII.Ff6•ffi4e++fCni .ua. :a�� 4.AsnArm.cy .®n: vAns nAuxea. Q�TG NRLLRN� 9 VV�-li L;: Vj, PPZL.MINARY PLAT OF EMPIRE ESTATES iN THE W iFl OF THE 8W IN OF SE ca ON I. T.2BNFL22W„ FLATHEAD COUNTY. &IONTAN' CRAP = 3CJ1S T Ses•htt�-E ipy.Ss P-3 �r Ca. d. r..rT 4.e..•.�-...w..rd a1r•m.�ye N-.wt l:.•�..�� Y.L r...� TO TAL AREA. 67.094 ACRES art ARS.: $105JaC- € UW05CaAEaa$a• fAF4 AC. RGA'D. 2 f.5f1f AC. i ti - - il y Dec 13 05 0E:03g in I11 IM i♦ p.G 07FtHE� O >C W=2—.L C(c 1L'M WARE L EMMrvY l^kv L" -WClfg IE E0MCMXr 7 HEIGHTS secs x0=01 1=u11 Fly ,�� 1C. SM1 pgaal� c4007 7s2-6PA8 = ,C t�• -- LOC ATED 14 THE 80MtE&$T CKJ clan 1romum- m TC3WNSW 28 NORTK RANGE 22 UVO != ❑ ooc i r r r l ID S�u111 1/C LarOEiL 50:r1[7H ! $ lrar FaUF� os � nut�E rABSE e I f I5 OUFM551- FUU/ U 5/fr rfsvt Fuumo I str pwe -M, " COPPER +an. oR �s murm o FUM 51zr ! W/CRP urlaElk _967 IY 5er 31R' A£B.R ►jcd a u&wm -€Yas Lv URCJIT Ekstm o LCxtM�G IFL:EFC WtD� te1TA plOxti atom aE+�a.+c C1 C•a4 1AIX]` 0C 45- C9.GG R56V C21 war__V f.5 'S2T rs 1 saa' rru 1 55T7 1r 'Ca 52• 15. 105'I$`t Sill i� CS 37_t Y' S3.00` 39'07^u C6 36, fu_45, x7saa'w'w Hta U6 3T. i .a0' CamlxY � CS % 1 x ak xo�r Cfa u37' rSW 961S01 ae l4a 1 C11 59A 6a'1 'S7^ SS V Gil Si 3TS0• a7_!Y n3 G1 4 54- V5w SSpO' a0' 6eT34' IV49 27 + aZV Y FHA t AFIEA TOTAL LOTS 5.566 AC. ROADS 3_302 AC. TOTAL 9157 AG. "1 E A U O W L A N 0- U N 1 T N 0- 2 g 10 11 12 17 to 19 � s a.-�o� �� w� .a1 �'[ w�!• -� ` ate„ 1 EAST IVORT HVTEW LOOP t �.a7 • _ r �T- - ��� � i rti � �Q 4C � ry fL`a� Mff7i'a7Y bl.t6 EAST rn 5.,vsIIC 'C,gA I Ll N 74ci) Is12 Yti/ +aru'silr �ay�i Ne k N j � t� 4 t _ CENTIMLINE THREE m1LF_ ORNE ! d e< 00 .wa 0). ry UN 7j rpr,J(,�.�'' w-UH a $ I �N �3 3 f11'1fr�"�� � T e 7, x r �r u � r` b ehe{# filn -Fth7if+� ResEd nfial 34-4 �. r 1 Ih m zy n� �c� APPENDIX B: REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE CHECKLIST - CD APPENDIX C: NOISE MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES - CD APPENDIX D: INFORMATION FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS - T - Mnntanc� i7e �rrtment of trans Qrfcrtiorr — -- — - Jim Lynch_ Direc!_or 2701 Pr0Vecf Avenue Brion Schweitzer, Governor PO Box 201001 Kalispell Helena MT 546241Li01 Bypass YP MDT project # NH -MT 5,3(59)109F CN 2038 INFORMATION for 'LOCAL. OrFF1C1AtS an HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 1VO15F Federal Noise Regulations, 23 CFR Bart 772 Information regarding potential noise impacts on currently undevek7ped lands along itae proposed Kalispell Bypass is being forwarded on to ycu, iri ac ordance with the Federal Noise Regulations (23CFR772.15). For your reference, a copy of the noise regulation is being transmitted with this letter. This letter relays the best estimation of future noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the Kalispell Bypass; provides inforambon that may be useful to local communities, planners and developers to protect future land development from becoming incompatible with the Bypass's projected noise levels; and discusses eligibility for Federal -aid Type 11 noise projects (retrofit noise abatement). The Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAQ The Federal 1lighway'Administration (FHWA), has established absolute noise level guidelines for several categories of land use activities; which include the following L,, noise levels - Category A Lq = 57 dBA Lands on which "serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need_.." Category B Lu = 67 dBA Picnic areas, recreation areas, parks, residences, motels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Category C L,,4 = 72 dBA Propertiestactivities which are not included in Category A or B (e_g., most commercial anti industrial activities). Traffic noise impacts occur when noise levels approach or exceed the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria listed in the above table. In the Montana Department of Transportation's Noise Policy and manual, dated .June 2001, we further define the terms "approaW as one decibel below the Federal NAC, and `exceed' as 13 decibels above existing noise levels- In our analysis of noise impacts along the proposed bypass, most of the noise impacts occur as substantial increases in noise - those areas where noise levels are expected to rise more than 13 decibels over existing levels. In Accordance with 23 CFR 772.15. projected traffic noise levels for the Kalispell Bypass project are shown in the table al the end of this letter. Also refer to the maps for location information and noise contours. Noise-Carrtpatible Land Use Planning S Noise Mitigated Development Land developers should be required, or at the minimum. encouraged, to implement "noise -compatible" development in their projects. One example is to provide greenbelts, open space or parkland between residential developments and busy or high-speed roadways. Also, landscaped berms, often incorporating bike or pedestrian paths, can reduce noise impacts while providing an aesthetically pleasing entrance or boundary to residential developments- Subdivisions can be designed such that service alleys andtor bike Paths are located between residents and highways, Providing slightly more distance between residences and roadway. Page 1 of 2 An Equal C7pporluruly Employer In higher-4lensity housing, garages, carports or storage sheds should back up to highways. Developers can choose more sound -absorbent materials in construction (refer to FHWA publication The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use): use (crick on exterior. highway -facing surfaces and design homes with non -sensitive rooms facing the road — like laundry room, garage, kitchen, playroom, utility room); and design the highway -side of residential structures without windows. Solid masonry fences (with no decorative gaps or holes) reduce noise much more effectively than wood stockade or slat fences. Rows of trees or bushes can provide a visual buffer between homes and highways, although they will not reduce the nose level much, if at ail. Commercial buildings. parking lots and garages and other non -noise sensitive land uses planned between residents and highways are excellent ways to buffer nose in mixed development neighborhoods_ in addition to the above generaiizations. the fallowing are some specific noise abatement measures recommended for consideration by the local jurisdiction in the project area: • Requiring developers to implement suitable noise abatement measures in those cases where adequate setbacks or buffer zones are not maintained (e_g-, berms, sound walls, insulation, doubleltriple pane windows, etc.): s Requiring acceptable setbacks or buffer zones for new residential units or developments (i.e.; The Table above indicates 304 feet east of the Kalispell Bypass centerline would be an appropriate distance to construct residences adjacent to the Kalispell Bypass right-of-way in order not to approach or exceed FHWA nose abatement guidelines); • Maintaining appropriate zoning for nor -sensitive land uses adjacent to the route; Lowering or maintaining (not raising) the current posted speed limits; Include a statement on any development/building permit indicating that the developer will be responsible for either avoiding traffic noise impacts or providing any associated abatement. Type tl Project Eligibility [23 CFR 77213(b)] Type If Projects, are for projects strictly for noise abatement on an existing highway, developed to address noise impacts to residential areas that were either previously not addressed or unknown. All Type If projects must have been approved by FHWA by November 28, 1995. MDT did not have a Type ll program approved by that date and does not currently have a Type II program. Noise abatement measures will not be approved at locations where such measures were previously determined to not be reasonable and feasible for a Type I project. Date of Public Knowledge Normally, the date of public knowledge is the approval date of the environmental determination (i.e., CE, FQNSI, ROD). For this project, the Record of Decision was signed by FHWA on 11/30/1994 and would normally be considered the date of public knowledge. However, because the Environmental Impact Staternent for this project stated that noise abatement measures would be considered in final design, we have chosen the date of August 9, 2006 as the date of public knowledge. This is the date of our public meeting in Kalispell to present the changes to the alignment and potential noise impact locations. After this date FHWA and MDT are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement for new development adjacent to the highway project. Development along the proposed bypass which is platted after this date will not be considered for noise abatement_ questions about this letter, or requests for traffic noise or noise -compatible land use planning information and/or publications can be directed to Cora Helm, Montana Department of Transportation Environmental Services, 406 44 4-7659 (coheim�mt.gov), or to ,toe Radon" in the same office, 406-444-9204 (iradonie h@mt,00v), 10 Page 2 of 2 INFORMATION) for LOCAL OFFICIALS In Accordance with 23 CFR 772.15, projected traffic noise levels for the Kalispell Bypass project are shown in the table bekrw_ Please refer to maps for more information. Projected Noise Levels In dBA 1,01, Along Proposed Kalispell Bypass West of Existing US 93 SOUTH SIDE NEAR STATION 6+01 West of Existing US 93 NORTH SIDE NEAR STATION 6+01 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Genterline Noise Levels " Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels 200 64 200 67 250 62 260 65 300 61 300 63 350 59 350 62 400 56 400 fit 450 57 450 59 West of Airport Road and south of Sunnyside Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 25+81 West of Airport Road and south of Sunnyside Drive WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 32+47 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels 200 65 200 65 250 63 250 64 300 62 300 62 350 _ 61 350 61 400 60 400 60 450 56 450 59 Between Sunnyside Road and Foys Lake Road EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 47+48 Between Sunnyside Road and Foys Lake Road WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 48+50 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels 200 64 200 64 250 63 250 62 300 - 62 300 350 61 60 350 61 400 60 400 58 450 59 450 57 .Between Foys lake Road and US Hwy 2 EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 56+40 Between Foys Lake Road and US Hwy 2 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 156+89 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Centerline Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Bypass Gentedine Nolse Levels 200 65 200 65 250 64 250 63 300 62 300 +62 350 61 350 60 400 60 400 59 450 59 450 58 Pages I of 2 Between US Hwy 2 and Two Mile Drive Between US Hwy 2 and Two Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 71+68 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 71+87 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels Centerline Bypass Centerline 200 65 200 64 250 63 250 62 300 62 300 61 350 61 350 60 400 60 400 59 450 59 450 58 Between Two Mile Drive and Between Two Mite Drive and Three Mile Drive Three Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 80+43 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 80 43 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels Centerline Bypass Centerline 200 71 _ 20D 61 250 68 250 60 300 66 300 59 350 64 350 58 400 62 400 57 450 61 450 56 Between Three Mile Drive and Between Three Mile Drive and Four Mile Drive Four Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 83+8 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 84+14 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels Centerline ---BZp2ss Centerline 200 65 200 65 250 63 1 250 64 300 62 300 62 350 61 350 61 400 60 400 60 450 59 450 59 Between Three Mile Drive and Between Three Mile Drive and Four Mile Drive Four Mile Drive EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 89+90 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 90+96 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels Centerline Bxpass Centerline 200 65 200 64 250 63 250 63 300 62 300 61 350 60 350 60 400 59 400 59 450 58 450 59 Between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve Between Four Mile Drive and West Reserve Connection Connection EAST SIDE NEAR STATION 102+56 1 WEST SIDE NEAR STATION 102+68 Distance to Kalispell Bypass Noise Levels Distance to Kalispell Noise Levels Centertlne Bypass Centerline 200 65 200 65 250 64 250 63 300 fit 300 62 350 61 350 62 400 59 400 59 450 58 450EE4 58 Shading indicates that the Noise Levels will exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and/or the criteria stated in the MDT Noise Poli _ Pope 2 of 2 t it .L 1 � s .+''�a ,� m�'�4� '�'r fin• _' i u A 1 s , I s I� PI 6 � — �F . - x �.!W6 �/� � �\. � \C%: ��\! Of- i n 6C B —7M Ala Ui 0 0 6EE f� 6E 2 J AIV 6 i lk 5 7 6EE 'o f ..� =1 Fee -,,'US) s Clear ` ] € Feet (US) . Measurement Result 383.3 Feet (US) By. SANDS SURVEYING, Inc. EXHIBIT 'A ' 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 In SEC. 12, T. 28N. , R. 22W. , P. M. , M. , (406) 755-6481 FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA JOB NO: 61111 DATE: June 20, 2023 FOR/OWNER: KLDS Investments, LLC 1 3 2' �42' I 57' 33'� _ u u Y u u L u O 50' ! 00' 50' 1 7,5' I no, TIC 0 m + 5' N 0 I 0 \� O X = O -51 z O 50' 00' 50' 74' 48' 56, 38' u u Y u u L u +10 0 m + 5' �n cf o fl N O X =_ � -rj' O 10, O 50' 100' 50' 1 5 5' Q 33'� s s 91' s 31' o L L > a � ca ca ca a T m 50' 00' 50' a'T By. SANDS SURVEYING, Inc. 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 755-6481 JOB NO: 61111 DATE: June 20, 2023 FOR/OWNER: KLDS Investments, LLC ITYa� 22255 0 0 I O� EXHIBIT 'A' In SEC. 12, T. 28N., R. 22W., P.M.,M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA LOT 22 LOT 21 y0 �0i LOT 1 LOT 2 SODBUSTER LOT 3 COURT -0 � ti0 Q a \ 0)Q v° LOT 13 LOT 12 LOT 11 SCALE : I" = 1 50' 50' 75' 0 150' LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 UTILITY LOT City Park By: SANDS SURVEYING, Inc. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: 2 V,'llege LoGp (40 Pe11, —6 5990' PIONEER ESTATES (4061 755-6481 ✓oa No: sort In NE1/4SW1/4 of SEC. 12, T.28N., R.22W, P.M.,M., DATE A g> 1 23, 2022 CITY OF KALISPELL, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA REVISED: November 14, EOeS sew re UPDATED: April 27, 2023 FOR Doug Sid— so zs o so Iao OWNER: XLDS investments, LLC -NCFH "(>e)TWO s _" OT Rlo" M+ R ITT a - � - � Canlonm'how l'Inlhm�l Hnsw MnvwnxProlro120h9 ms - pA 6 s*e''° Nes•�dyf'e 9 rV ' i �. nnn w.hwmo OV8RE0 PACON PR.IIL y Nze'GI'6o'S 15 A o ZdySd to $ O g tnon when 5S tFe u9tlsounudn ds not frozen. eee `/ O;e Due to winter weatM1er cend'itions. ss .P / su Y nd 1Fereiore were not located. Alp.11�1.11*11 III .. s BBO � o I ".___ LOT 22 � ` ,�• �- '� fa.ozs sy.re. a —�ee.e ��-som^1. e��191 21 ��5a6 © 59TUATEH. LYING ANH H➢NG ST @UAATER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1 @UAATEH OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP Z6 NOATH. C qyg p gg•(g) a 5 PZATAEAD COUNTY. MONTANA,YAND MOREEWIT- �65, FARTICI-T Y DE ,H D AS FDA TD % rnet 3 eenran of Flafhe de Co tvrveMy No. 255 n onteaaj, , / u%m / � J � � onteiningt8386 ACRES Svbjeet to and together together cA zy>s .Hh aI � t®anT eaa®�ta aT rar z o � A• e, si59 9q.iY. �e � LEGEND: ��� i• �� v L— _o _�h of 9 W nana mbrzo>a CgP (9236H) 1—d F.P%EOT (4>42S) o,9csZyy65 7-39.F2 e (R) Recond IN rmef/on Per C.o.s. 2P256 r 012 J v _ gyp, - m ee 4t'7p ao 9 w m O R/W ]n�o, from State SLgbwa°y Plant/ � .f CbUR{ 2 ]2ao0r.., m n K zo �a. O m�e E255 h L 7 P 37 Ft. rvn uo" - ^E�LOT BI 0 -- aH ❑ �L LOP s h 9 ,zao� �m w nd e,soa e n © m F-A 0 I � a _� ° a -ate sy✓e. © � 4 �alwnro.� t Hear10' m 5v� �, 3TnUo \, 4• �t'rf'1 T T loUtiL'dty Easement ouLvide the ® —i�11 so Eon Hrw raa anown) \r A� ma V m a@.00 fear gq. A�eess VICINITY MAP �Tn . �.. 91 ... ACREAGE TABLE: G _ Lots 1-I1 & I6-20 2H6H6 A, 91ng/e Famlly/Resld-111 Lots (R-4) Late 16.. I7, 21 & 22 1.0 44 A, Townhonse Zats (R-4) •yuM �r Utulty Lot l,= A, Utliitles. Drainage. Pedestrian —1 a`�, Roads 1 9888 Ac /to beoome 111, Streets) { L.S. Hsn'.2 �,���Kalispell Zoning KALISPELL Pioneer Estates ® Subject Parcel B-2 General Business R-4 Residential RA-1 Residential Apartment RA-1 Residential Apartment w/PUD RA-2 Residential Apartment e Data Sources: s 93 R-4 Residential Apa Montana Cadastral, N 0 145 290 580 870 Flathead County GIs Feet City of Kalispell GIs, Basemap: Austin Bachurski - June 16, 2023 Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.Com CITY Or Kalispell Growth Policy KALISPELL Pioneer Estates ® Subject Parcel Commercial Urban Mixed Use High Density Residential Urban Residential It Public/Quasi Public, Openspace Floodway n Data Sources: Montana Cadastral, N 0 145 290 580 870 Flathead County GIs Feet City of Kalispell GIs, Basemap: Austin Bachurski - June 16, 2023 Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.Com CITY OP Kalispell Mailing List ® Subject Parcel 0 Mailing List Parcels Pioneer Estates KALISPELL Other Parcels 93 Data Sources: Montana Cadastral, Flathead County GIs City of Kalispell GIs, Austin Bachurski - June 16, 2023 I �nbriar D jC N 0 95 190 380 570 Feet Basemap: Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.com