Loading...
#KGPA-24-01, KA-24-01, and KPP-24-01_ Tronstad Meadows_ Whitetail Crossing Application Comment from Michelle WeinbergFrom: Michelle Weinberg To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment Cc: Chad Graham; Mark Johnson Subject: EXTERNAL Re: #KGPA-24-01, KA-24-01, and KPP-24-01: Tronstad Meadows/ Whitetail Crossing Application Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 12:18:34 PM Attachments: Tronstad Greenlight 6-3-24.Ddf KGPA-24-01.KA-24-03.KPP-24-01.KCC Meetina.5.31.24.Ddf [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Good afternoon, I have attached the most recent letter from Rick Nys regarding the new traffic impact study. While he was unable to conduct a complete analysis given the short timeframe, the deficiencies he was able to identify preclude approval of the above referenced matters the council will consider this evening. Thank you, Michelle T Weinberg, PLLC On May 31, 2024, at 12:57 PM, Michelle Weinberg <michelle@michelleweinberglaw.com> wrote: Good afternoon, Please see the attached letter in reference to the Tronstad Meadows/ Whitetail Crossing Application. Thank you, Michelle Weinberg Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1417, Missoula, MT 59806 (406) 314-3583 mchelle@michelleweinberglaw.com May 31, 2024 Sent via E-Mail Kalispell City Council 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 publiccommen@kalispell. com Re: #KGPA-24-01, KA-24-01, and KPP-24-01: Tronstad Meadows# Whitetail Crossing Application To: Kalispell City Council This firm represents Sandy and Jeff Muller in the above referenced matter and submits this letter in opposition to these matters and to explain the legal deficiencies with the application and public process. My clients are joined by Brandon & Tammi Thornburg, Mary & Tony Sisneros, Guy Foy, Larry Meilhargey, Rocky Williams, Kristen Grahn, Ming & Dr. Dan Munzing, Roger & Sarah Boulch, Brian Kelly, Brenda & Thomas Oberlitner, and Danielle & Steve Tuhy in their opposition. First, as I explained in my May 20, 2024 oral public comment to this Council, my client's public comment dated May 3, 2024 was not included in the Council's last three packets. As I understand it, the numerous letters this Council has received since the Kalispell City Planning Commission's meeting have also not been included in subsequent packets. Here, the record does not show the receipt, let alone the Council's consideration, of these individual comments. Moreover, excluding these public comments from the documents related to the above referenced agenda items also means that the public has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine, analyze and be informed by public comments or documents presented by their fellow citizens. Such an exclusion violates the public's Right to Participate, Right to Know, and Montana's open meeting laws. Second, because the development proposal presents numerous public health and safety hazards, the applicant's request for a zone change and preliminary plat must be denied. Pursuant to the zoning review criteria of § 76-2-304, MCA, #KA-24-03 is deficient because the request does not substantially comply with the Growth Policy and the record fails to show that the development is designed to: (i) secure safety from fire and other dangers; (ii) promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and (iii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. To the contrary, the numerous public comments received by the City prove that the deleterious impacts of increased vehicular traffic and to fire access, fire and emergency services, water quality, school capacity, and bicycle and pedestrian safety, etc. preclude the approval of the developer's zoning request. See, e.g., Kalispell Planning Commission Minutes (April 9, 2024). While the Staff Report seeks to dismiss these real, specified concerns with conclusory statements, such statements are insufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny under § 76-2-304, MCA. Additionally, under the subdivision review criterial of § 76-3-608, MCA, KPP-24- 01 must undergo review for the "impact on agriculture, agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural environment, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public health and safety, excluding any consideration of whether the proposed subdivision will result in a loss of agricultural soils." As with the zoning request, the subdivision request is likewise deficient due to the Staff Report's failure to take a "hard look" at the impacts of a given project, including the EA and § 76-3-608 criteria. Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC v. Simmons, 2010 MT 79, ¶ 54, 356 Mont. 41, 230 P.3d 808. With respect to the subdivision request, the developer submitted a new Traffic Impact Study after the Kalispell City Planning Commission meeting' which, of course, constitutes "new information or analysis of information" that was not "submitted as evidence or considered by" the Commission. Mont. Code Ann. § 76-3-615; Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, pg. 15. Because the public has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine and comment on this new Traffic Impact Study and because the City Council cannot consider the new TIS at this stage of the process', the Council must deny the developer's request for subdivision approval. For these reasons, my clients respectfully requests that the Council deny the applicant's above referenced requests. Thank you, /s/ Michelle T. Weinberg ' Rick Nys, P.E., a Principal Traffic Engineer, reviewed the TIS dated February of 2024 in a letter dated April 9, 2024 and found it to be deficient and unreliable such that this Council cannot rely on it to approve the developer's request. Kalispell City Council Packet, pg. 503-511. ' Section 76-3-608(4), MCA ("The governing body may not consider any information regarding the subdivision application that is presented after the [public] hearing when making its decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed subdivision."). Page 2 MICHELLE T. WEINBERG, PLLC Attorney for Sandy and Jeff Muller Page 3 June 3, 2024 Kalispell City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Transportation Impacts Greenlight Engineering has been asked by Sandy and Jeff Muller to evaluate the transportation related impacts of the proposed Tronstad Meadow and Whitetail Crossing just outside Kalispell, Montana. We have reviewed the February 2024 "Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study" (hereafter referred to as the "TIS") and the May 2024 "Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update" ("TIS Update") prepared by Abelin Traffic Services. My previous April 9, 2024 report addressed many of the errors and omissions of the TIS. I provided oral testimony at the April 9, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The application continues to fail to establish compliance with the requirement that "The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways" and "The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development." Based on this, the applications should not be approved. The Applicatian Fails to Analyze Traffic at Each Phase of Development The City of Kalispell "Standards for Design and Construction" require that "The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development." The City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations state: "If the applicant proposes a phased subdivision, a phasing plan must be submitted which outlines: a. A plat delineating each phase and a general time frame for each phase, b. Public improvements phasing plan showing which improvements will be completed with each phase." The development will be constructed in four phases. The application continues to fail to provide a general time frame for each phase as required. The TIS and TIS Update fail to provide any analysis of level of service at the study intersections at the end of each of the four phases as required. The TIS and TIS update provide 2026 (supposedly the opening year of the development even though four large phases are proposed), 2031 and 2036 level of service analyses (Kalispell requires a five and ten year analysis in addition to an opening year analysis of each phase). The 13554 Rogers Road • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com • 503.317.4559 suggested completion of the development by 2026 would appear unrealistic and unlikely to occur. The 2026 would also need to include the approval, design, permitting and construction of a traffic signal with intersection realignment at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Si lverbrook Drive intersections where the necessary right-of-way may not even be available. The City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations state that "Each phase must be free-standing, that is, fully capable of functioning with all the required improvements in place in the event the future phases are not completed or completed at a much later time." This requirement would presumably include the requirement for intersections to operate adequately at the end of each phase and not rely on future phases to construct infrastructure. In my April 9, 2024 report, I raised concerns about the lack of phasing information and analysis of each phase. These concerns were not addressed as part of the TIS Update. The applicant is required to illustrate the adequacy of each of the study intersections at the completion of each phase. Instead, the TIS and TIS Update provides the necessary evidence to establish that without a traffic signal at Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive, the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road fails to operate adequately and the approval criteria of the City of Kalispell is not met. Per the TIS Update, the traffic signal wouldn't be warranted until at least Phase 2. The applicant has failed to provide analysis or a plan about how the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road will be mitigated until the traffic signal is installed. The only evidence establishes the failure to meet city requirements at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersection. The TIS Illustrates an Unmitigated Intersection Failure Table 2 of the TIS Update establishes that the existing level of service at the Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road intersection is LOS B. Table 7 of the TIS Update establishes that the level of service of the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersection will be LOS C without a traffic signal in place at the intersection of Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive. This is a degradation in the level of service at the intersection. The applicant has failed to provide analysis that illustrates compliance with the clear and objective city criteria that "The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways" and "The traffic impact analysis shall consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development." In the proposed condition of approval of City of Kalispell Resolution No. 6199, the failure is acknowledged: "The development is required to maintain or improve the level of service of existing roadways and intersections. Recommended mitigation from the Traffic Impact Study shall be implemented. In addition, the TIS does show a drop in the level of service at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road and Tronstad Road that may need to be mitigated. Additional analysis and amendments to the TIS may also be required as phases of development are completed. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations)." K The TIS and TIS Update don't contemplate any potential mitigation at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersection even though the approval criteria requires that the application maintain the existing level of service during each phase of the development. The TIS and TIS Update provide no evidence of feasible mitigation. Instead, the TIS and TIS Update clearly provide evidence that the level of service will not be maintained and that the city approval won't be met. The TIS Update notes that "It is likely the project will begin to produce sufficient traffic to meet warrants for the installation of a traffic signal by Phase 2 of the development (approximately 200 units developed)." The TIS and TIS Update note that traffic volumes at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road will continue to increase until all turning movements at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection have been restored after a traffic signal is installed. However, the degradation of the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersection will continue until that time and will occur across the phases of the development with no proposed mitigation to bring the intersection into compliance with city criteria. Based on this acknowledged and unmitigated intersection failure alone, the application must be denied and no further review is necessary. Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive Not Analyzed Correctly The TIS and TIS Update redistributed traffic volumes on the east approach of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection when converting the intersection from it's current restricted left turn configuration to a traffic signal configuration with all left turns available. However, the TIS and TIS Update have failed to account for adjustments to traffic volumes on the west approach to Highway 93 from Silverbrook Drive. As noted below, the TIS and TIS Update also have failed to account for numerous in -process approved developments, some of which may add traffic to the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection. Properly accounting for all of the traffic at the intersection may impact the needed lane configuration at the intersection. The TIS and TIS Update assume that west leg (Silverbrook Drive) will have a one lane approach to Highway 93 while the east leg (Tronstad Road) will have a two lane approach to Highway 93, which will create an offset at the intersection. Traffic Impact Study Not Possible to Review Completely The TIS and TIS Update lack the evidence that would allow for a complete review including the following major omissions: • There is no way for a reviewer to review or recreate the projected Tronstad Road traffic volumes illustrated in Table 11 of the TIS Update used in the traffic signal warrant analysis. No work is shown to understand how these traffic volumes were generated. • There is no data of eastbound/westbound hourly traffic flow on Tronstad to illustrate the amount of traffic that approaches the Highway 93 intersection over the course of a day. This would be used in determining traffic signal warrants. • There is no data illustrating hourly traffic count information on Highway 93 that establishes the claimed peak hours used in the TIS and TIS Update. • The TIS and TIS Update fail to include or explain the exclusion of numerous approved developments. These are detailed in my April 9, 2024 report. 3 • No crash data is provided. Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive Intersection Inappropriately Conditioned Proposed condition of approval #18 of City of Kalispell Resolution No. 6199 requires: "Based on the annexation policy and the current status of the intersection with a limited movement, it is appropriate for the traffic signal to be constructed in conjunction with the first phase of development, including rebuilding the intersection to align Tronstad Road with Silverbrook Drive. As a Montana Department of Transportation ("MDT") right- of-way, MDT determination of warrants for the traffic signal and the appropriate timing will have a large bearing on when the mitigation is put in place. However, the City's requirement is that it be installed as early in the phasing of the development as allowed by MDT. In order to ensure that the signal is ready to be installed when allowed by MDT, an approved design and financing mechanism shall be in place prior to final plat approval of the first phase of development. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations)" The applicant has not provided any evidence that a realignment of the intersection is feasible. The applicant may not control the substantial amount of property on either side of Highway 93 needed to accomplish this realignment so it is not clear that this condition is feasible to meet. Additionally, the TIS and TIS Update do not recommend and no engineering study has recommended that the traffic signal be installed as part of the first phase of development, so it would be inappropriate to require that the traffic signal be installed as part of the first phase of development. Westbound Turn Lone of Highwov 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive Argued Aooinst but Required The TIS Update notes that "Currently Highway 93 has a dedicated left -turn lane at Tronstad Road. This analysis showed that the projected traffic volumes will be above the recommended threshold for the installation of a right -turn deceleration lane for northbound traffic on Highway 93 at the Tronstad Road intersection. Turning lanes would not be necessary at the approaches on Tronstad Road" (emphasis added). Later, when analyzing the traffic signal warrants at Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive, the TIS Update conflicts with itself and notes that "...the intersection with Tronstad Road would be designed with separated right -turn and left -turn lanes on the approach to Highway 93 if constructed." With the realigned Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection, there will be a lane offset as the TIS and TIS Update propose just a single lane approach on Silverbrook Drive even though the intersection was not analyzed correctly as previously noted. All of the TIS and TIS Update traffic analysis for the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection involving the traffic signal relies upon the construction of a westbound left turn lane on Tronstad Road at Highway 93. It is important that this turn lane be required based on the applicant's analysis and any condition of approval should note the need to include the turn lane given the discrepancy in the TIS and TIS Update. 4 Conclusion As described above, the TIS and TIS Update contains numerous errors and omissions and fails to establish as required that the development will "...maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways." The TIS fails to "...consider the phasing of the development and make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development." There is an unmitigated intersection failure at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road and there continue to be significant omissions in the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverb rook Drive intersection analysis. Based on these issues, the applications should not be approved. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559. Sincerely, Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Traffic Engineer ••gip NT A Nq••. • * RICHARD M. NYS No. 59700 PE 'SS/ONAL��.