Loading...
H1. Ord 1931, Tronstad PUD Development Services Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Assistant Director of Development Services SUBJECT: Ordinance 1931 – Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Initial Zoning and Planned Unit Development Overlay MEETING DATE: November 18, 2024 BACKGROUND: Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties have submitted applications for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, including requests for annexation, initial zoning of R-2 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) overlay, and preliminary plat approval for 355 lots on approximately 110.5 acres, including lots, roads, and common areas. The property is located on the north side of Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road, opposite of Sirucek Lane. The property can be legally described as Parcel 2A of Certificate of Survey No. 21853, located in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the west half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. A formal written protest was submitted which was signed by at least 25% of the owners of lots within 150 feet of the proposed zoning. Under Section 76-2-305, MCA, zone changes require a favorable vote of 2/3 of the present and voting members when a formal protest is filed. The Kalispell City Council, at their meeting on November 4, 2024, approved the annexation of the property on a 6-1 vote. The first reading of Ordinance 1931 relating to the initial zoning and PUD overlay was approved on a 5-2 vote and included an amendment to condition 19 that the improvements be contingent on county approval. The preliminary plat was approved on a 5-2 vote. RECOMMENDATION: INITIAL ZONING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve the second reading of Ordinance 1931, an Ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, official zoning map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677, by zoning certain real property described as Parcel 2A of Certificate of Survey No. 21853, located in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the west half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, as R-2 (Residential), and applying a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning Overlay subject to 38 conditions in accordance with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan- It 2035, and provide an effective date. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: October 8, 2024, Kalispell Planning Commission Minutes Staff Report Application Materials & Maps Cost of Services Analysis MDT letter Public Comment to Planning Commission c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk Return to: Kalispell City Clerk PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 ORDINANCE NO. 1931 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1677), BY CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO BE KNOWN AS TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING PUD OVER CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2A OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 21853, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, CONTAINING 110.5ACRES; SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH ALL APPURTENANT EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY - PLAN IT 2035, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Frank Garner and Montana Seven Properties, the applicants for the property described above, petitioned the City of Kalispell that the zoning classification attached to the above described tract of land be zoned R-2, Residential, on approximately 110.5 acres of land, with a Planned Unit Development overlay, to be known as Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing PUD; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned as County R-2.5; and WHEREAS, the Garner and Montana Seven Properties petition was the subject of a report compiled by the Kalispell Planning Department, Staff Report #KPUD-24-03, in which the Kalispell Planning Department evaluated the petition and recommended that a Planned Unit Development overlay be attached to the above described tract of land; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the matter on October 8, 2024, and recommended that a Planned Unit Development overlay be attached to the 110.5 acres of land; and WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the proposal to attach a Planned Unit Development overlay to the property, the City Council finds such zoning to be consistent with the Kalispell Growth Policy – Plan It 2035 and adopts, based upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-3-608, M.C.A., and State, Etc. v. Board of County Commissioners, Etc. 590 P2d 602, the findings of fact of KPD as set forth in Staff Report No. #KPUD-24-03. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 27.02.010, of the Official Zoning Map of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1677) is hereby amended by changing the zoning classifications of the subject property to and attaching the property described above with a Planned Unit Development overlay. SECTION 2. The Planned Unit Development overlay proposed by Garner and Montana Seven Properties upon the real property described above is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council. 2. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. (Section 28.2.06(E)(7), Subdivision Regulations) 3. Upon approval of the preliminary PUD by the City Council, the property owner shall proceed with the preparation of the final PUD plan as provided in Section 27.19.020(7) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 4. As a PUD with an associated preliminary plat application, the abandonment or expiration of the PUD is governed by Section 27.19.020(10) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 5. The Planned Unit Development for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing allows the following deviations from the Zoning Regulations: (a) Lot Size: Sec 27.05.040(1) – Under the R-2 zone, minimum lot size is typically 10,000 square feet. The proposal includes lots ranging generally from 6000 square feet to 12,000 square feet, with the largest lot being 19,879 square feet. This deviation allows lot sizes substantially as shown on the proposed plat. (b) Use (Accessory Dwelling Units and Short Term Rentals): Sec 27.05.020 and 27.05.030 – This deviation is proposed by the applicant and would prohibit accessory dwelling units and short term rentals within the subdivision. (c) Lot Width: Sec 27.040(2) – The minimum lot width in the R-2 zone is 70 feet. This request would reduce the lot width for some of the smaller lots to 50-70 feet. This deviation allows lot widths substantially as shown on the proposed plat. (d) Lot Coverage: Sec 27.040(5) – The maximum lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 35%. This deviation maintains the 35% maximum on all lots that are 10,000 square feet or more and would allow up to 40% on smaller lots. (e) Setbacks: Sec 27.05.040(3) – The minimum side setback in the R-2 is 10 feet and the minimum side corner setback is 20 feet. This deviation reduces the side setback for lots that are 8000 square feet or less (plus Lots 63 and 303) and reduces the side corner setback to 15 feet for corner lots of several blocks on the interior of the development specified in the application. 6. 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 fixture 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. It is intended that when the project is developed the ponds will act as features, particularly along the roadways, rather than a private maintenance utility facility. (Section 28.3.17, Subdivision Regulations) 7. 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 of any phase, 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. (Section 28.3.17, Subdivision Regulations) 8. 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. (Section 28.3.18, Subdivision Regulations) 9. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 10. New infrastructure required to serve the subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell’s Standards for Design and Construction. All design work shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This infrastructure shall include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. (Section 28.3.14 & 20, Subdivision Regulations) 11. 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 of any phase, 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. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 12. Any water rights associated with the property shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell per Section 28.3.08 of the subdivision regulations. Only water rights controlled by the developer are to be dedicated. 13. The existing water main shall be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. Within the subdivision, water mains shall be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 14. The existing agricultural well (the Koenig Well) shall be transferred to the city along with adequate space for a municipal water well facility building. Appropriate space for a well facility shall be dedicated as a utility lot to the City of Kalispell along with necessary easements or right-of-way needed to accommodate connection(s) and access to the well facility from dedicated street right-of-way. Additionally, development design shall accommodate a 100’ well protection zone as required by Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the existing and/or future well. As part of the project, existing irrigation main and power lines shall be removed. In the event that neither the existing well nor a replacement well is suitable for connection to the city system, the water rights would be utilized by the city in a separate location. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 15. The existing sanitary sewer main shall be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. Within the subdivision, sewer mains shall be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 16. A capacity analysis of downstream gravity main, force main, and lift stations shall be performed with each phase of development. Upgrades required to accommodate sanitary sewage flows from the development will be required to be completed as part of the project development and any associated costs will be borne by the development. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 17. The developer shall submit the street designs to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. In addition, Sections 28.3.13 and 28.4.14 of the Subdivision Regulations includes access, street and road design standards that shall be part of the engineering design review. (Section 28.3.13,14, & 16 Subdivision Regulations) 18. The frontage of the property along Tronstad Road shall be improved to an urban major collector standard in accordance with the Transportation Plan and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Full width improvements are required on the development side of the street including, but not necessarily limited to curb and gutter, street signage, striping, sidewalk, street lighting, boulevards and landscaping. Minimum improvements on the eastbound lane of Tronstad Road shall include full lane width and shoulder. Improvements to a major collector shall include the dedication of ten (10) additional feet of right-of-way along the frontage in order to install the required standard improvements. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 19. The developer shall upgrade the portion of Tronstad Road that fronts the Koenig Subdivision so that there is a city width road from the west end of Quail Meadows to the east end of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing. The upgrade shall include a sidewalk contingent upon County approval. PUD condition/Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 20. Within the subdivision, there is one minor collector street and the remainder are local streets. All internal streets shall be built to the collector or local design standards as appropriate pursuant to the Standards for Design and Construction including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 21. 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. Additional analysis and amendments to the TIS may also be required as phases of development are completed. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 22. All of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection improvements allowed by MDT prior to Phase 1 of the subdivision shall be installed prior to final plat. The improvements (other than the traffic signal and other improvements designated by MDT as Phase II of the intersection improvements) shall be installed prior to final plat of Phase 1 and shall not be eligible for bonding under a subdivision improvement agreement or other mechanism. The Intersection Phase II improvements shall have an approved design and shall be bonded for as part of the final plat of Phase 1 of the subdivision unless MDT allows them to be installed prior to Phase 1, in which case those improvements shall be installed as well and shall not bonded for. All intersection improvements shall be fully installed prior to final plat of Phase 2. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 23. 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.” 24. The recommendations in the Geotech report shall be followed. (Section 28.3.10, Subdivision Regulations) 25. Prior to final plat of any phase, 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. (Section 28.2.09(E), Subdivision Regulations) 26. 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. (Section 28.3.21, Subdivision Regulations) 27. Per Section 28.3.21 of the Subdivision Regulations, 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 28. 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. (Section 28.3.24, Subdivision Regulations) 29. A homeowner’s association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of the common areas, including, but not necessarily limited to, roads, parks and open space. (Section 28.3.17 & 22, Subdivision Regulations) 30. 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. (Section 28.3.23, Subdivision Regulations) 31. 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. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 32. A park plan shall be created and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to final plat. (Section 28.3.22, Subdivision Regulations) 33. The developer shall work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan subject to the review and approval of the Parks Department. 34. 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. (Section 28.3.22, Subdivision Regulations) 35. 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. (Section 28.3.17, Subdivision Regulations) 36. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. (Section 28.8.01, Subdivision Regulations) 37. 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. (Section 28.3.21(C), Subdivision Regulations) 38. All areas disturbed during development shall be re-vegetated with a weed-free mix immediately after development. (Section 28.3.02, Subdivision Regulations) SECTION 3. The balance of Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after 30 days of its passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA, THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. ____________________________________ Mark Johnson Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Kalispell City Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2024 Page | 1 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING & WORK SESSION October 8, 2024 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham, Rory Young, Pip Burke, Tim Stocklin, and Shelby Odell. Doug Kauffman and Joshua Borgardt were absent. Jarod Nygren, PJ Sorensen, Kari Barnhart, and Kirstin Robinson represented the Kalispell Planning Department. Keith Haskins represented the Kalispell Public Works Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Young moved and Odell seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2024 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC None. KA-24-08, KPUD-24-03, & KPP-24-04 – TRONSTAD MEADOWS & WHITETAIL CROSSING A request from Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, including requests for annexation, initial zoning of R-2 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) overlay, and preliminary plat approval for 355 lots on approximately 110.5 acres, including lots, roads, and common areas. The property is located on the north side of Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road, opposite of Sirucek Lane. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Reports KA-24-08, KPUD-24-03, & KPP-24-04. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-24-08 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city R-2 (Residential) with a PUD overlay. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPUD-24-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing PUD be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-24-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Stocklin clarified with Sorensen that the subdivision adjacent to the proposed subdivision would not be forced to annex. Young clarified with Sorensen condition 5D of the PUD. Kalispell City Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2024 Page | 2 PUBLIC COMMENT Jessica Bubar – 250 Highland Dr – Opposes the development and provided information about available real estate listings. Does not think this is the right time for this project. Dan Munzing – 213 Tronstad Rd – Opposes the development due to traffic safety. Does not agree with the Traffic Impact Study and provided feedback for the Traffic Impact Study. Michelle Taylor – 1210 Birch Grove Rd – Agrees with previous comments in opposition of the development and is concerned about safety, traffic, and infrastructure. Brian Kelly – 230 Highland Dr – Opposes the development and agrees with Mr. Munzing’s comments. Concerned about roadways, emergency egress, density and feels it’s not good for the community. Jeff Muller – 45 Tronstad – Opposes the development and agrees with Mr. Munzing’s comments. Concerned about infrastructure, traffic safety, and sidewalks. Ron Bralsey – 163 W Swift Creek Way – Is not opposed to the development but is concerned about traffic and safety on Hwy 93. Ben Hollett – 2999 Whitefish Stage Rd – Opposes the development and is concerned about traffic and safety on Whitefish Stage Rd and density. Jean Ambrose – 445 Sirucek Ln – Opposes the development and his concerned about pedestrian safety and traffic. Mary Olsen – 248 Mannington Dr – Opposes the development and is concerned about traffic on Whitefish Stage Rd, infrastructure, and schools. Dan Pierson – 3307 Whitefish Stage Rd – Opposes the development and agrees with previous comments in opposition. Is concerned with traffic. Dave Kaupp – 236 Tronstad Rd – Requested information on how to obtain a copy of the meeting minutes. Jim Thompson – 144 Northland Dr – Opposes the development and stated that the city should improve roads when annexed into the city. Glenda Johnson – 653 Country Way – Opposes the development and is concerned with traffic on Whitefish Stage Rd and Reserve. Cory Dreiling - 7 Tronstad – Opposes the development and is concerned about traffic and safety on Tronstad. Kristine Hursh – 210 Tronstad – Opposes the development and is concerned about density, traffic, infrastructure, and her well. Barry Bunn – 3423 Goldenrod Ln – Opposes the development and is concerned about traffic, safety, and density. Kalispell City Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2024 Page | 3 Mae Osborn – 67 Tronstad – Opposes the development and agrees with previous comments opposing the development. Is concerned about density, schools, and hospitals. Eric Mulcahey – Representative for the Applicants – Stated that the changes to this application were made based on public and council comments and that the developer is willing to improve Tronstad from Quail Meadows, across the Koenig subdivision, and to the eastern border of the property. Also stated that the developers are working with MDT to address the intersection at Hwy 93 and Tronstad in Phase 1. He advised that the infrastructure, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, would be built to City standards and that the TIS was based on cumulative growth. Mr. Mulcahey is happy to answer any questions from the Commission. Ming Munzing – 213 Tronstad – Opposes the development and is concerned about traffic and road safety on Tronstad, schools, density. Does not agree with the staff report and TIS. Also feels that the development is not harmonious with nearby subdivisions. Michelle Weinberg – Legal Representative for the Munzings – Stated that the application does not address underlying issues such as public health and safety. Also stated that the proposed development will not secure safety from other dangers or promote public health and general welfare. Ms. Weinberg recommends denial of the development. Rick Nys – Traffic Engineer representative for the Munzings – Stated that he submitted a report dated October 4th but had not seen the updated traffic impact study report and provided his findings of the TIS. Does not believe the subdivision should be approved based on his findings. Deanna Bennett – 310 Sirucek Ln – Opposes the development and is concerned about traffic safety, density, and construction traffic on Sirucek Lane. Jon Sonju – Member of the Ownership Group – Stated that the development group is not responsible for the growth north of town and that the ownership group is willing to make significant infrastructure improvements. Frank Garner – Member of Ownership Group – Stated that his group worked diligently with the neighbors and feels like every condition from the city have been met. Mr. Garner stated that the developers have made many concessions including density, parkland, phasing, and road improvements. Mark Taylor – Member of Ownership Group – Stated that the conditions on the staff report are the most stringent he has ever seen and that there is a need for housing. Mr. Taylor stated that the new letter from MDT is consistent with condition #22 in the staff report. Also stated that the group is paying to improve the intersection at Hwy 93 and Tronstad when the state has no money for improvement. Kalispell City Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2024 Page | 4 Danielle Tuhy – 280 Highland Dr – Opposes the development and is concerned about density and safety on Tronstad. Travis Taylor – 1210 Birch Grove Rd – Opposes the development and is concerned about timing, density, and traffic. Jeremy Peterson – 2135 N Wintercrest – Supports this development since it would provide more opportunities for people to buy homes. Stated that the improvement of Tronstad would reduce snow drifts and that density drives home prices down so more people can buy homes. Julie Cambell – 289 Sirucek Ln – Opposes the development until more improvements are made. MOTION KA-24-04 Young moved and Stocklin seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-24-08 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city R-2 (Residential) with a PUD overlay. BOARD DISCUSSION Odell stated that the development is not right for the location, that it’s too dense, and that there are too many cars on Tronstad. Graham stated that the developer is taking care of 90% of the problems on Tronstad, that he believes in market filtering, and that he will be supporting the development. Odell had concerns about the east side of Tronstad. Burke stated that the developer is not responsible for the entire road and that it would be a benefit to the community. Young thanked the public for their comments and stated that the city is required to follow state law and that the commission is required to review the application and make decisions based on the findings of fact. Young stated that he will supporting this development. ROLL CALL Motion passed 4-1 on a roll call vote. MOTION KPUD-24-03 Stocklin moved and Young seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPUD-24-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing PUD be approved subject to the conditions in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed 4-1 on a roll call vote. MOTION KPP-24-04 Burke moved and Young seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-24-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing be approved subject to the conditions in the staff report. Kalispell City Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2024 Page | 5 BOARD DISCUSSION Young stated that the preliminary plat is phased, that the developer will be working with the city and MDT, and that there will be a lag before houses start being built. ROLL CALL Motion passed 4-1 on a roll call vote. KPUD-24-04 & KPP-24-05 – NORTHLAND SUBDIVISION PHASE 5C Bridgeland Development, LLP, has submitted applications for an amended Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) overlay modifying the existing Northland PUD and for preliminary plat approval of Northland Subdivision Phase 5C, a major subdivision with 28 residential lots, roads, and common area on 10.9 acres. The property is currently zoned R-3 (Residential) with the PUD overlay that was approved in 2004. This proposed subdivision would replace a currently approved preliminary plat on the property. The property is generally located on Northland Drive to the west of the intersection with Summit Ridge Drive. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Reports KPUD-24-04 & KPP-24-05. Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPUD-24-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Amended PUD for Northland be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-24-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Northland Phase 5C be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Young requested Sorenson to clarify the meaning of natural grade. Staff provided Burke with an example of another development with a 45ft height deviation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. MOTION KPUD-24-04 Young moved and Odell seconded that the Kalispell Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPUD-24-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Amended PUD for Northland be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Burke disclosed that she lives within 150 of the project. She stated that she does not have any objections to this development. She also stated that people who live in the county do receive notifications from the city because she lives in the county and received notification for this proposed development. ROLL CALL Motion passed 5-0 on a roll call vote. MOTION KPP-24-05 Stocklin moved and Odell seconded that the Kalispell Planning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-24-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Kalispell City Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2024 Page | 6 Northland Phase 5C be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed 5-0 on a roll call vote. KA-24-09 – GREATER VALLEY HEALTH CENTER (CARVER ENGINEERING) Greater Valley Health Center has requested annexation and initial zoning of B-2 (General Business) for property located at 1995 3rd Avenue East. The annexation request is based on the need for a new connection to city water service. The property can be described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 12162. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report KA-24-09. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-24-09 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city B-2 (General Business). BOARD DISCUSSION Young clarified with staff that the adjacent B-2 zoning and the reason for the application was for water and sewer connections. Nygren stated that applicants must petition to annex and that the city doesn’t initiate annexation. PUBLIC COMMENT Danielle Tuhy – 280 Highland Dr – Opposes the annexation because it is too deep in the city and that they are already using city services. MOTION KA-24-09 Young moved and Stocklin seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-24-09 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city B-2 (General Business). BOARD DISCUSSION Graham stated that the applicant petitioned for annexation. ROLL CALL Motion passed 5-0 on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS Sorensen updated the board on the September 10, 2024 agenda items. NEW BUSINESS Sorensen updated the board on the upcoming November 12, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:01 PM. __________________ ___________________ Chad Graham Kirstin Robinson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/amended: 1 TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-2 – STAFF REPORT #KA-24-08 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – STAFF REPORT #KPUD-24-03 MAJOR SUBDIVISION - STAFF REPORT #KPP-24-04 KALISPELL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 8, 2024 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Commission and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request from Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties for annexation, initial zoning of R-2 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) overlay, and preliminary plat approval. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Commission for October 8, 2024, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report regards applications from Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, including requests for annexation, initial zoning of R-2 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) overlay, and preliminary plat approval for 355 lots on approximately 110.5 acres, including lots, roads, and common areas. The property is located on the north side of Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road, opposite of Sirucek Lane. The property was the subject of an application submitted in the spring of 2024 for a growth policy amendment to extend the annexation boundary to encompass this property, annexation, initial zoning of R-3 (Residential), and a preliminary plat for 380 homes. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 9 and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council on each issue. At City Council, the growth policy amendment was approved on a 7-2 vote, placing the property within the annexation boundary. The request to annex the property was approved on a 7-2 vote as well. However, the zoning designation was not approved with four votes of six required votes supporting the requested R-3 zone, nullifying the annexation. Given that the property was not annexed and the proposed plat would require R-3 zoning, the subdivision plat was not considered. A: Applicant: Frank Garner MT Seven Properties PO Box 10176 PO Box 62 Kalispell, MT 59904 Helena, MT 59624 B: Location: The property can be legally described as Parcel 2A of Certificate of Survey No. 21853, located in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the west half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. 2 C. Size: The subject property is approximately 110.5 acres. D: Adjacent Zoning: North: County SAG-5 & SAG-10 East: County SAG-5 South: County R-2.5, SAG-5 & SAG-10 West: City R-3; County R-2, B-1, SAG-5 & SAG-10 E: Adjacent Land Uses: North: Single-family residential; agricultural East: Agricultural; Single-family residential South: Single-family residential; Mini-storage West: Single-family residential; Commercial/Industrial F: Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is undeveloped and has been used for agricultural production. The current zoning for the property is county R-2.5 (Rural Residential), which is “a district intended for rural, primarily residential areas where larger, estate-type lot sizes are appropriate and agricultural/silvicultural/horticultural operations are a decreasingly viable land use. The use of this district is appropriate in transition areas adjacent to and between higher-density Residential (R) and lower-density Suburban Agriculture (SAG) zones. This district is not appropriate in areas primarily surrounded by lower-density SAG and AG zones and/or areas adjacent to significant 3 ongoing agricultural/silvicultural/horticultural and/or extractive industry operations. Furthermore, public facilities should be appropriately developed to accommodate the density and land uses of this designation. This includes paved roads. It is intended that no uses be permitted in this district that will tend to devalue property for residential purposes or interfere with the health, safety, order or general welfare of persons residing therein.” G: Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning is city R-2 (Residential). The Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the intent of the district is “to provide adequate lot areas for lower density residential development; should have good thoroughfare access, and be in proximity to community and neighborhood facilities, i.e., schools, parks, shopping areas, etc. This development will normally require all public utilities. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as suburban residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map.” H: General Land Use Character: The subject property is on the north side of Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road. It is in a general area that is primarily residential in character, but includes a mix of commercial, light industrial, and agricultural uses. The area is becoming increasingly urban in nature. In addition to county subdivision and tract land surrounding the subject property, there are city developments throughout the area with Silverbrook Estates and Quail Meadows having developed to the west, Eagle Valley Ranch developing to the south, Stillwater Village receiving preliminary plat to the west, the Farm District mixed use development receiving approval on Church Drive to the north, and the Dusty Acres annexation to the south. I: Relation to the Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential, the lowest density residential designation in the city, which anticipates up to four (4) units per acre. With 110.5 acres, up to 442 units per acre would be allowed (355 are proposed, or about 3.2 units per acre). 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. The property is adjacent to the city limits and is located within the annexation/urban 4 growth boundary established in the growth policy. When property lies within the annexation boundary area, there is a presumption that annexation is appropriate and would likely be supported, and the annexation petition is considered through the typical process. J. 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 is adjacent to Tronstad Road. Sewer: City of Kalispell upon annexation Water: City of Kalispell upon annexation Refuse: City of Kalispell upon annexation Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative Gas: NorthWestern Energy Telephone: Lumen Schools: School District #5 (Edgerton Elementary)/Glacier High School Fire: West Valley Rural Fire/City of Kalispell upon annexation Police: Flathead County Sheriff/City of Kalispell upon annexation I. ANNEXATION EVALUATION A primary consideration in the evaluation of the annexation is the fact that the City Council extended the annexation boundary under the growth policy to include this property in June 2024 on a 7-2 vote. That action demonstrated that the development of the property, in the Council’s view, should occur within the city to an urban standard. Under the annexation policy, “the map graphically portrays those areas adjacent to the City where requests for annexation would be 5 routinely embraced and conversely those areas further out where requests for annexation or municipal service may be provided using alternative measures.” Requests for annexations from property owners within the annexation boundary are likely to be supported. In addition to the inclusion of the property within the annexation boundary, there have been several annexations and developments in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, with an extensive amount of development occurring north of the Stillwater River. Just since 2020, there have been the Schwager/Quail Meadows annexation immediately adjacent to the subject property (2020), the Ponderosa Vet annexation on Ponderosa Lane (2021), the Farm District at Church Drive and Highway 93 (2022), and Dusty Acres just south of Tronstad and Highway 93 (2024). There has also been substantial development within city subdivisions in the area which has created and continues to create development pressure in the north area of Kalispell. Quail Meadows developed adjacent to the property with a final plat in 2022, Stillwater Bend received final plat in 2023, Kalispell North Town Center’s most recent final plat was in 2023, Silverbrook Estates most recent final plat was in 2023, and Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 2 and 3 were final platted in 2022. All of those subdivisions have seen an extensive amount of pending and actual construction. In addition, there have been preliminary plats approved for new subdivisions at Stillwater Village and Silverbrook Estates to the west of the subject property, as well as an extension of the annexation boundary along Church Drive just to the north of this property in 2019. Furthermore, the property is well within the planning area for the City of Kalispell. It is shown as Suburban Residential on the growth policy land use map, which anticipates residential development with city R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 residential zoning at up to four units per acre. The proposed development would be zoned R-2 with a PUD overlay with approximately 3.2 units per acre. The city has anticipated growth to occur within its planning area and would expect both this property and the surrounding area to eventually develop to an urban standard. The Kalispell Public Works Department reviewed the most recent facility planning and other documents relating to infrastructure capacities. The systems reviewed included sanitary sewer, water, storm water, and transportation. Based on that review, Public Works concluded that, while the: 6 “project area was not included in the Wastewater Facility Plan Update, capacities do exist, have been planned for downstream of the project, and/or will be mitigated by the project. Per City Standards for Designs and Construction (Standards), and sewer upgrades required to serve the project will be provided by the development. Additionally, although the Water Facility Plan Update didn’t include this project area, the existing agricultural well, if transitioned to a municipal well as proposed by the development, will provide a benefit to the Upper Pressure Zone and other area developments also served by the Upper Pressure Zone. No required area storm improvements are known at this time, but Standards require both detention and treatment of stormwater to be completed onsite for any development. Finally, the project’s proposed installation of a traffic signal at Highway 93 and Tronstad provides a benefit to existing development, as well as future area development on both sides of Highway 93. In consideration of the findings as described above, the City of Kalispell will have no issues providing services to the development that won’t be mitigated by the development through design and construction efforts.” Additionally, the property is within the existing mutual aid service area of the Fire Department. The City supplies West Valley Fire department with mutual aid when they make a request, or if the call comes into dispatch as an Advanced Life Support call. If West Valley requests a city response to a fire or medical call, that location is within a five-minute response time from Station 62. If annexed, it would be within the jurisdictional area of the fire department and can be served by the city. The subject property lies within the immediate path of actual and anticipated development. Being that the property is adjacent to the existing city limits and inside the annexation boundary, as well as being within about 500 feet of existing city utilities and within an area the city has the ability to serve, the annexation of the property would create a logical extension of the city. If the property is not annexed, it will create an obstacle to the logical extension of the city in this direction by adding additional cost to developments beyond this property which will need to install utility lines across this frontage to reach their property, impacting the availability and affordability of housing in the community. Providing available and affordable housing is an important aspect of the growth policy. A. Compliance with the growth policy: Two primary means for managing growth in the City of Kalispell are redevelopment/infill within the current city limits or annexation of outlying areas. A goal of the growth policy is to provide a comprehensive, effective growth management plan that provides for all the needs of the community, is adaptable to changing trends and is attuned to the overall public welfare. Chapter 9, Public Infrastructure and Services, includes a goal to “make public water and sewer available to areas that are in close proximity to services,” and annexation allows for such extensions to happen. In addition, the city council adopted an annexation policy in 2011, with a corresponding map, as an addendum to the city’s growth policy document. The purpose of the annexation policy is to give the Planning Commission, the Council, and the development 7 community direction when property owners outside of the city limits are requesting annexation. The property proposed for annexation is located within the city’s annexation boundary and is immediately adjacent to the current city limits. There are several aspects of the growth policy which support the annexation of the property: Growth Management: Chapter 1, The Economy, Goal 2 states, “monitor the growth trends within the valley in order to be in tune with the changing economy.” The valley is growing. A study by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER)/The University of Montana from February 1, 2023 (pg 10-11), found that “Flathead County needs to add almost 1,500 more housing units each year in the next ten years to accommodate what we consider to be a very conservative scenario for population growth from new in-migration. Over a ten year period, the cumulative amount of new housing additions are estimated to be 14,800 for the County. The adequacy of any single development, or even groups of developments, to address the housing challenges faced in the coming years should be judged against this aggregate need.” Given the proximity of city services, the subject property is located in a prime location to accommodate some of that growth. The existing land use designation of Suburban Residential provides for the development of the property for residential use. Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped. General goals and policies of the growth policy encourage the orderly development in the growth policy area with space for future expansion while ensuring compatibility of adjacent land use. There have been extensions of city services to within a short distance of the property, and other infrastructure improvements in the area, such as the water tower under construction to the south, which have changed the conditions in the area and its development potential. In addition, the traffic impact study (“TIS”) submitted with the proposed subdivision calls out a traffic signal at the intersection of Tronstad and Highway 93, improving the transportation infrastructure supporting the development. Housing: As noted in the University of Montana housing study, there is an acute need for additional housing in Kalispell and the valley as a whole. The annexation and proposed development of the property would help serve that need. The growth policy calls out a number of relevant goals related to housing which support the proposed development: Chapter 3, Community Growth and Design, Goal 3 states, “to encourage housing types that provide housing for all income sectors and income levels within the community.” Chapter 4 – Housing, Goal 1 of the Kalispell Growth Policy states, “Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the needs of present and future residents in terms of cost, type, design and location.” 8 Chapter 4 – Housing, Policy 3 states, “Encourage the development of urban residential neighborhoods as the primary residential use pattern in the Growth Policy area. These developments should incorporate design features that are either consistent with or anticipate the changing character of the area.” Chapter 4 – Housing, Policy 3 states, “Low-density residential (suburban) neighborhoods should be developed at a density that does not exceed 4 dwelling units per acre on an overall site basis. An integrated development plan within a suburban neighborhood could include: (a) Single-family homes on lots down to 5,000 square feet, (b) Zero lot line and patio homes, when accompanied by generous open spaces and common areas, and (c) townhomes.” Business and Industry: As a residential development, there are no goals and policies relating to business and industry directly related to this proposed annexation. However, an issue currently facing business and industry in the city is the availability and affordability of housing, which directly impacts the workforce. In order to adequately staff businesses, there must be an available workforce that is able to find and afford housing in the community. Providing additional housing helps serve that need and improves the business climate. Natural Environment: The natural environment is an important part of what makes a neighborhood or community an appealing place to live, which may be jeopardized as growth occurs. The growth policy in Chapter 5 on the Natural Environment, while recognizing the importance of minimizing the impact of development, also includes goals stating that the City should “encourage higher density mixed use developments on lands within and close to the city limits” (Goal 7); “discourage large lot developments without public infrastructure” (Goal 8); and “encourage urban growth only on agricultural lands entirely within the City’s annexation policy boundary” (Policy 5). The purpose behind those goals and policies is to keep growth within an area immediately around existing urban growth utilizing city services, such as sewer. By keeping growth in those areas and supported by infrastructure, the natural environment of the valley as a whole is better protected than by allowing sprawl to consume outlying areas. Community and Recreational Facilities: Community recreational facilities will not be affected by the proposed annexation. Development on the site includes a preliminary plat and homeowners’ parks that would be provided as part of the review criteria under the subdivision regulations and state law. Transportation: Chapter 8 of the growth policy on Transportation includes a policy to “coordinate land use and transportation so higher-intensity development is located in well-established areas near arterial and collector streets” (Policy 2). The subject property is located on Tronstad Road, which has a future classification as a major collector under the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan – Move 2040. Tronstad connects with Highway 93 North to the west, which is a principal arterial, and Whitefish Stage Road to the east, which is a major collector. The road network, particularly in conjunction with upgrades related to the TIS for the proposed subdivision, would support the annexation under this policy. 9 Infrastructure and Public Services: Infrastructure and the provisions of public services are among the highest priority issues for service providers in the growth policy area. Adequate provision of services for new development in both the rural and urban areas are important considerations when considering planning for future land uses. Chapter 9, Public Infrastructure Services, contains the following goals and policies which support the requested annexation. Water: Goal 9: “Provide adequate pressure and flows to meet firefighting and user needs.” Any development of the site will include requirements that the property is developed in accordance with the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction and facilities plans, which accounts for pressure and fire flows to meet firefighting needs. Prior to construction, the development will be reviewed by Public Works and the Fire Department to ensure compliance with those requirements. Sewer: Goal 2: “Make public sewer available to areas that are in close proximity to services as directed by the extension of services plan.” Sewer service is located within approximately 500 feet of the development in Tronstad Road. Future development of the site would include extending services to the property and extending the main the entire length of the property as the property develops. Goal 5: “Ensure the wastewater treatment plant and sewer collection system has adequate capacity to accommodate future development.” The wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity for this development. Storm Water Management: Goals: “Ensure adequate storm water management facilities for all incorporated urban areas.” Policies: “The quantity and rate of runoff from a developed piece of property should not exceed that which would occur had the property remained undeveloped.” Any development of the site will include requirements that the property is developed in accordance with the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction, which accounts for storm water facilities. Prior to construction, the development will be reviewed by Public Works to ensure compliance with those requirements. 10 Police Protection: Recommendations: “As the community grows, ensure that the law enforcement agencies have adequate staffing and resources.” Polices: “Adequately staff law enforcement agencies.” The City has the capacity to serve the property. As part of the review of the proposed subdivision of the property, police service for the property is considered as it relates to the particular proposal. Fire and Ambulance Services: Goals: “Adequately staff and operate fire companies to be able to handle demand and provide effective fire and EMS response and mitigation.” Policies: “All new construction, occupancy remodeling and/or change of documented occupancy use shall be required to comply with adopted fire, electrical and building codes.” The City has the capacity to serve the property. As part of the review of the proposed subdivision of the property, fire service for the property is considered as it relates to the particular proposal. As part of the engineering design review, if the subdivision is approved, hydrants and fire access are reviewed for compliance with the relevant codes. B. Municipal Services: The City of Kalispell has an extension of services plan that details how services would be extended to the annexed property. Both sanitary sewer and water services are available to the property. Any additional extensions necessary to provide service would be designed and installed by the property owner subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public Works Department under the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. The site is currently protected by the West Valley Rural Fire District and the Flathead County Sheriff’s office. The applicant has submitted a Notice of Withdrawal from the Rural Fire District. At the time of annexation, the property will be served by the Kalispell Police and Fire Departments. The site lies approximately 2.75 miles from fire station 62 and is readily serviceable by the city fire, police, and ambulance services. In addition, the City has a future fire station site planned on the north side of Silverbrook approximately one mile to the northwest. Given the level of existing services available to the property, annexation will not overburden the municipal services in place. 11 C. Distance from current city limits: The subject property is immediately adjacent to the existing city limits line. D. Cost of services: Once annexed to the city, full city services will be made available to the property owner. Any necessary infrastructure associated with this development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell’s Design and Construction Standards and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply. As undeveloped land, any cost of servicing the property would be minimal, but there would be assessments and tax revenue that would be collected. Once developed, it is also anticipated that the revenue generated would exceed the cost of servicing the property. Cost of services analysis showing an approximate projected net revenue of about $16,000 upon annexation and $681,000 upon full buildout when completed, and the analyses are included as part of the record. The projected amount does not include the recently approved emergency services levy, which would increase the projected net revenue. II. INITIAL ZONING EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.29.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently zoned county R-2.5 (Rural Residential). The applicants are requesting city R-2 (Residential) as the underlying zone. 1. Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy? The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential. The zoning ordinance contemplates R-2 as an appropriate zone within that land use designation. The requested zone complies with the growth policy. 2. Will the requested zone have an effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems? The access for the property is onto Tronstad Road, which connects to Highway 93 North to the west and Whitefish Stage to the east. Annexation and zoning of the area would not directly change the impact on the transportation systems, with the impact a function of the property development. Any development of the property would be reviewed and approved according to city design criteria that would account for access to the site. Along with this application, the applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval and includes a traffic impact study that is required based upon the number of proposed lots. Required mitigation based on the study would be required as a condition of subdivision approval. 3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? Adequate access and public facilities are available to the site in case of an emergency. There are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the 12 public. All municipal services including police/fire protection will be available upon annexation. 4. Will the requested zone promote the public health, safety and general welfare? The general health, safety, and welfare of the public will be promoted through general city regulations designed to regulate allowable uses. In this case, the requested zoning classification of R-2 will promote the health and general welfare by restricting land uses to those that would be compatible with the adjoining properties and those in the vicinity. 5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Setback, height, and lot coverage standards for any development occurring on this site are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to ensure adequate light and air is provided. 6. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? All public services and facilities are available to the property. Any development of the property would be reviewed and approved pursuant to city design criteria. Along with this application, the applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval that would address those issues. 7. Will the requested zone promote compatible urban growth? The requested zoning is consistent with the type of growth projected for this area and is consistent with the current zoning in the vicinity, which is primarily residential in nature. The proposed residential district maintains and is compatible with the established residential land use pattern in this area. 8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the character of the district and its particular suitability for particular uses? The proposed R-2 zoning district is consistent with the surrounding residential development in the immediate and general area. The proposed zone fits into that overall pattern and gives due consideration of the suitability of this property for the allowed uses in the zoning district, such as proximity of city services. 9. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the R-2 zoning district will promote compatible and like uses on this property as are found on other properties in the area. Any potential future development on the property will be reviewed for compliance with zoning dimensional standards and design review criteria to ensure its appropriateness for the area and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 13 10. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the municipality? Urban scale development should be encouraged in areas where services and facilities are available, and it serves to support appropriate use of land throughout the city by further developing city infrastructure. The proposed zoning is consistent with the growth policy and is compatible with current zoning in the immediate area. III. EVALUATION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The intent of a PUD district is to serve as an overlay zoning district. The district shall function in concert with one or more of the underlying zones to provide a comprehensive, integrated development plan which will serve to modify the underlying zone and, where appropriate, subdivision standards with the intent of providing flexibility of architectural design and density as well as providing the option to mix land uses and densities while preserving and enhancing the integrity and environmental values of an area. 14 Section 27.19.020(4) of the zoning regulations provides that the planning commission shall review the PUD application and plan based on the following criteria: A. The compliance of the proposed PUD with the city growth policy and, in particular, density and use policies of the plan. The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential, the lowest density residential designation in the city, which anticipates up to four (4) units per acre. With 110.5 acres, up to 442 units per acre would be allowed (355 are proposed, or about 3.2 units per acre). 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. The property is adjacent to the city limits and is located within the annexation/urban growth boundary established in the growth policy. Other specific provisions of the growth policy which support the annexation and development of the property are discussed in Section I(A) of this report relative to the annexation evaluation. The proposed PUD is in substantial compliance with those goals and policies. B. The extent to which the PUD departs from the underlying zoning and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest, and the mitigating conditions that the PUD provides to address the deviations. The applicant has requested five deviations related to zoning: (1) Lot Size: Sec 27.05.040(1) – Under the R-2 zone, minimum lot size is typically 10,000 square feet. The proposal includes lots ranging generally from 6000 square feet to 12,000 square feet, with the largest lot being 19,879 square feet. Of the 355 lots, 140 would exceed 10,000 square feet. The layout of the subdivision provides for the larger lots to be on the outer edges of the subdivision with the smaller lots in the interior. All of the lots bordering adjacent properties would comply with the R-2 lot size. The requested deviation is intended to provide a mix of lot sizes within the subdivision while maintaining consistency with the density limits of the growth policy. The arrangement of the lots helps mitigate the impact by providing a transition from adjacent parcels, which would be adjacent to the larger lot sizes. Additionally, the smaller lot sizes allow for design elements such as a 30-foot landscape buffer along the western property boundary. With the mix of lot sizes, the arrangement of lots, and the buffer area, this deviation request is appropriate. (2) Use (Accessory Dwelling Units and Short Term Rentals): Sec 27.05.020 and 27.05.030 – This deviation is proposed by the applicant in order to help mitigate the deviation related to lot size. The proposed PUD allows for limitations on accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and short-term rentals. Without the PUD, state law would not allow the subdivision to be conditioned on a prohibition on ADUs and short-term rentals would be allowed under general city regulations. In the context of a PUD, deviations from generally applicable 15 zoning and subdivision standards can be approved and conditioned when requested by the applicant, as is the case in this situation. The limitations provide more certainty in the development of the site and sideboards on the number of units which may be constructed, which in turn provides a benefit to the neighborhood as a PUD rather than developing the property under generally applicable standards. This deviation request is appropriate. (3) Lot Width: Sec 27.040(2) – The minimum lot width in the R-2 zone is 70 feet. This request would reduce the lot width for some of the smaller lots to 50 feet. All of the lots bordering adjacent properties would maintain the 70-foot minimum width (on irregular shaped lots, the measurement is taken at the building line rather than the street). Most of the smaller lots would be 58 to 62 feet wide with a handful of irregular lots being at 50 feet. Typically, lot widths in zones with 6000 square foot lot sizes are 50 feet. Allowing the deviation on the smaller lots would be consistent with lot dimensions that would be expected on lots between 6000-10,000 square feet. With the reduction in lot size, the lot width deviation would be a natural adjustment and the deviation is appropriate. (4) Lot Coverage: Sec 27.040(5) – The maximum lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 35%. Lot coverage includes structures on the property, but not driveways, sidewalks, or similar improvements. This deviation request would maintain the 35% maximum on all lots that are 10,000 square feet or more and would allow up to 40% on smaller lots. Lot sizes in zones at the 6000-10,000 square foot range typically have maximum lot coverages of 45%. Allowing the deviation on the smaller lots would be more consistent with lot dimensions of that size. With the reduction in lot size, the lot coverage deviation would be a natural adjustment and the deviation is appropriate. (5) Setbacks: Sec 27.05.040(3) – The minimum side setback in the R-2 is 10 feet and the minimum side corner setback is 20 feet (the side corner setback is on the longer street side of a corner lot). As with the other deviation requests, the smaller lot sizes would typically have 5-foot side setbacks and 15-foot side corner setbacks. This request would reduce the side setback for lots that are 8000 square feet or less (plus Lots 63 and 303, which are irregularly shaped lots on the interior of the subdivision) while maintaining the side setback on the larger lots, including all of those adjacent to other parcels. Similarly, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the side corner setbacks on specified lots located on the corners of several blocks on the interior of the development to 15 feet. As with the other deviations related to the size of the lots, the setback reduction for smaller lot sizes is consistent with development standards for lots of that size. The setback deviation would be a natural adjustment and the deviation is appropriate. C. The extent to which the PUD departs from the subdivision regulations (if subdivision is anticipated) and the public works standards for design and construction applicable to the subject property, the reasons why such departures are deemed to be in the public interest, and the mitigating conditions that the PUD provides to address the deviations; The applicant did not request any deviations from the subdivision regulations. 16 D. The overall internal integrity of the PUD including the appropriate use of internal design elements, the use of buffers between different land uses, the use of transitions between uses of greater and lesser intensity, the use of enhanced design features to provide connectedness for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic throughout the PUD and the use of innovative and traditional design to foster more livable neighborhoods; The overall layout of the development is a single-family residential development and includes a cohesive mix of homes, park areas, open space, and a road network. The layout is a more traditional design without any deviations from the subdivision regulations necessary for a functional development, but does include design elements to better integrate into the surrounding area. Internal to the subdivision, there is a consistency of uses and design, and no need for internal buffers or similar features. The internal road network utilizes standard road designs without design deviations which might be necessary with smaller lot sizes. Those road sections include sidewalks for pedestrians. The plans also call for maintaining to the extent possible an existing band of trees within a park buffer area along the western boundary and would include a pedestrian walking trail. Additionally, existing trees would be maintained along the northern boundary and new plantings would occur on the remainder of the northern and eastern boundaries. The northern and eastern buffers would be on individual lots with requirements in the covenants that a vegetative buffer be maintained. The roads include two connections to Tronstad and potential future connections to adjoining properties. Externally, the density of the homes is designed to provide lower density lots on the outside perimeter with the smaller lot sizes towards the center. This layout is intended to better transition from neighboring properties which, while they are similar land uses as single-family residential, are generally larger parcels. Additionally, the buffer areas would help transition from 17 the existing residences adjacent to the development. The developer should work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan that would be subject to review and approval of the Parks Department. A condition requiring the buffers should be included in the conditions of approval. Similarly, the stormwater facilities and any fencing around any stormwater ponds should include an elevated design. They should be designed in a way that it becomes a visual interest to the development. Chain link fencing surrounding retention ponds as the dominant fixture should not be allowed without mitigation. The developer should work closely with the Parks Department and Public Works to come up with a design that is both visually appealing and meets required safety guidelines. It is intended that when the project is developed the ponds will act as features, particularly along the roadways, rather than a private maintenance utility facility. E. The nature and extent of the common open space in the planned development project, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the common open space and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan; Subdivision regulations require a minimum of 0.03 acres of parkland per dwelling unit for single-family lots, or 10.65 acres for the 355 single-family/townhome lots (or the equivalent value in land with improvements). The plat identifies 11.73 acres of park area, although some of the area may not be included as park area depending upon the impact of storm drainage facilities and other features which could impact the land as usable area for recreational purposes. The parks may include amenities that will be determined during the course of the detailed subdivision design review in conjunction with the Parks Department. The park areas are spaced throughout the subdivision to provide various options within walking distance for the homeowners in the development. The amount of area, potential amenities, and dispersal through the development are consistent with other residential subdivisions in the city and are adequate for the use, density, and dwelling type in this proposal. The applicant is intending to include a buffer maintaining to the extent possible an existing band of trees which were planted along portions of the property line. The trees would be in a common area and would include a walking trail. The developer should work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan that would be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Department. A condition requiring the buffer should be included in the conditions of approval. It is imperative that these areas be well maintained for the visual aspects of the project and the functionality of the parks, open space, and storm drainage areas. The applicant included their draft covenants for the homeowners’ association with their application. The covenants contain provisions for the maintenance of the parks and other common facilities as well as assessments for funding the maintenance. While the covenants are a typical and reliable method of maintaining those features, subdivisions in the city also typically include a condition that a note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district, and staff would recommend its inclusion. This district shall only be 18 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. F. The manner in which said plan does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic and further the amenities of light or air, recreation and visual enjoyment; Public service facilities and infrastructure are adequate for the development of this site. Any new improvements to the property such as roads, storm water facilities and water/sewer mains would be installed in accordance with city policies and standards at the developers’ expense. As it relates to the phasing plan, any infrastructure necessary to support a particular phase would either be installed or bonded for prior to final plat. Water: Water service to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell. The developer will tie into an existing water main in Tronstad Road approximately 500 feet to the west of the property and extend the main through the subdivision. The existing water main will be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. If Public Works requires the main to be oversized beyond the size needed to serve the development, the city may either participate in the upsize of the water main or allow for the creation of a latecomer agreement for the developer to recoup the oversize costs. Within the subdivision, water mains shall be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. Oversized extensions may be required to the northern extent of Open Range Terrace (the most easterly north south road) and the eastern extent of Fallow Loop (northerly east west road with street extension to adjacent parcel) to establish logical extensions of the water transmission main network. A water main connection to the Silverbrook Well as shown in the preliminary drawings is important. If not completed, another looping connection may be required. The water system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision under the Standards for Design and Construction. There is adequate capacity within the city’s water system to accommodate this subdivision with the connection. Proportionate water rights are required to be dedicated to the City of Kalispell per Section 28.3.08 of the subdivision regulations. Only water rights controlled by the developer are to be dedicated. There is an existing agricultural well (the Koenig Well) that will be transferred to the city along with adequate space for a municipal water well facility building. Cursory evaluation of the well logs indicates the existing well may be utilized as a test well and a new, larger well may be drilled adjacent to the existing well for municipal purposes. Appropriate space for a well facility will need to be dedicated as a utility lot to the City of Kalispell along with necessary easements or right-of-way needed to accommodate connection(s) and access to the well facility from the 19 dedicated street right-of-way. Additionally, development design shall accommodate a 100’ well protection zone as required by Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the existing and/or future well. As part of the project, existing irrigation main and power lines will need to be removed. The water distribution system for the subdivision must be designed to serve the development regardless of the onsite well facility. In the event that neither the existing well nor a replacement well is suitable for connection to the city system, the water rights would be utilized by the city in a separate location. Sewer: Sewer service to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell. The developer will tie into an existing main in Tronstad Road approximately 500 feet to the west of the property and extend the main through the subdivision. The existing sanitary sewer main would be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. A capacity analysis of downstream gravity main, force main, and lift stations will need to be performed with each phase of development. Upgrades required to accommodate sanitary sewage flows from the development will be required to be completed as part of the project development and any associated costs will be borne by the development. Within the subdivision, sewer mains will need to be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. Minimum slope installations may be required to accommodate future logical extensions. The sewer system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision under the Standards for Design and Construction. There is adequate capacity within the city’s sewer system to accommodate this subdivision with the connection. Solid Waste: Solid waste collection can be provided throughout the PUD by the City of Kalispell. There is sufficient capacity within the landfill to accommodate this additional solid waste generated from this development. Access, Roads, and Control Over Vehicular Traffic: A detailed discussion regarding access, roads, and traffic, including a submitted Traffic Impact Study and supplement, is included in this report under Section IV(D) relating to provision of local services under the evaluation of the subdivision plat. Storm Water: 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. Any open storm water facilities should have an elevated aesthetic design to be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Public Works Departments. Final design will be approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to development. Additionally, prior to receiving any building permits, the developer will need to submit a construction storm water management plan to the Public Works Department. This plan will need to show how storm water will be treated and where it will be directed during construction activities. Schools: The property is within the boundaries of School District #5 (Edgerton Elementary) and Glacier High School. On average, it would be anticipated that there would be about 178 students 20 (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 property. Fire Protection: Fire protection services will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department. The department can adequately provide service to this development. Additionally, the road network to the subdivision provides adequate access for fire protection. As part of subdivision review, fire protection, including fire flow and hydrant location, will be reviewed. Fire station 62 is located approximately 2.75 miles away providing good response time. In addition, the City has a future fire station site planned on the north side of Silverbrook approximately one mile to the northwest. Parks: The PUD and subdivision regulations require a minimum of 0.03 acres of parkland per dwelling unit for single-family lots, or 10.65 acres for the 355 single-family/townhome lots (or the equivalent value in land with improvements). The plat identifies 11.73 acres of park area, although some of the area may not be included as park area depending upon the impact of storm drainage facilities and other features which could impact the land as usable area for recreational purposes. The parks may include amenities that will be determined during the course of the detailed subdivision design review in conjunction with the Parks Department. The applicant is also intending to include a buffer maintaining to the extent possible an existing band of trees which were planted along portions of the property line. The trees would be in a common area and would include a walking trail. The developer should work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan that would be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Department. A condition requiring the buffer should be included in the conditions of approval. The park area, open space, and buffering, in conjunction with building setbacks and maximum lot coverage standards, help preserve adequate light and air, provide recreational opportunities, and create a visually aesthetic design. G. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established; The subject property is on the north side of Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road. It is in a general area that is primarily residential in character, but includes a mix of commercial, light industrial, and agricultural uses. The area is becoming increasingly urban in nature, with Silverbrook Estates and Quail Meadows having developed to the west, Eagle Valley Ranch developing to the south, Stillwater Village receiving preliminary plat to the west, the Farm District mixed use development receiving approval on Church Drive to the north, and the Dusty Acres annexation to the south. A substantial amount of additional development is expected to continue in the vicinity in the future. This proposal generally continues the pattern of development. 21 As with any development, consideration must be given to impacts related to the development and steps should be taken to mitigate those impacts to the extent possible in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Provision of city services, particularly sanitary sewer, helps minimize the impact on the neighborhood by developing the property without relying on septic systems and other aspects of rural development that have a greater impact on the environment. By reducing the proliferation of septic systems, the overall impact on the environment is improved. The availability of city services in the area for properties which may have failing septics in the future is a benefit to both individual property owners and the community as a whole. Similarly, storm water facilities within the subdivision would help control runoff and treat it before being discharged. Visually, the PUD calls for a 30-foot buffer along the western boundary that maintains an existing band of trees. The buffering will help mitigate the impact on neighboring properties by creating an aesthetic break, shielding existing neighbors through that stretch from the new development, and the phasing plan moving from the southeast counterclockwise defers that impact as well. The growth policy in Chapter 5 on the Natural Environment, while recognizing the importance of minimizing the impact of development, also includes goals stating that the City should “encourage higher density mixed use developments on lands within and close to the city limits” (Goal 7); “discourage large lot developments without public infrastructure” (Goal 8); and “encourage urban growth only on agricultural lands entirely within the City’s annexation policy boundary” (Policy 5). The property is adjacent to the city limits and lies within the annexation policy boundary. The purpose behind those goals and policies is to keep growth within an area immediately around existing urban growth utilizing city services, such as sewer. By keeping growth in those areas and supported by infrastructure, open space such as agricultural areas and natural lands in the valley as a whole are better protected than by allowing sprawl to consume outlying areas. Traffic impacts are a significant consideration for the neighborhood, particularly in regard to the intersection of Tronstad and Highway 93 North. In its current state, the intersection has stop signs on Tronstad and Silverbrook Drive, with a restricted ¾ movement on Tronstad that requires traffic from Tronstad to make a right turn only. The proposed development would improve the intersection with a traffic signal, turn lanes, and other improvements and allow southbound movements onto the highway. Without the development, it is unlikely that the intersection will see any improvements in the foreseeable future without a rural special improvement district. The frontage of Tronstad along the development would be improved as well. Those improvements would both mitigate impacts of the proposed development and alleviate some of the concerns regarding the existing conditions expressed through public comment. In regard to potential density, the proposed PUD allows for limitations on accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and short-term rentals. Without the PUD, state law would not allow the subdivision to be conditioned on a prohibition on ADUs and short-term rentals would be allowed under general city regulations. In the context of a PUD, deviations from generally applicable zoning and subdivision standards can be approved and conditioned when requested by the 22 applicant, as is the case in this situation. The limitations provide more certainty in the development of the site and sideboards on the number of units which may be constructed, which in turn provides a benefit to the neighborhood as a PUD rather than developing the property under generally applicable standards. H. In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after consultation with the city attorney; The applicant has proposed four phases of development, starting in the southeast corner of the property and moving counterclockwise to the northeast, northwest, and then the southwest corners. The terms and conditions of the plan would be applied through conditions of the PUD, which is an ordinance adopted by the City Council, and conditions of the preliminary plat, which is a resolution also adopted by the City Council. Final plat would be required to be approved by the Council for any phase before homes could be constructed, at which point the Council would verify that all of the applicable plat conditions are met. The applicant has also included proposed covenants, which would provide for the maintenance of common facilities and include provisions related to ADUs and short-term rentals. Additionally, the plat would include waivers of protest of certain special improvement districts which may be utilized in the event that the facilities are not maintained. The sufficiency of the terms and condions proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan was reviewed by the City Attorney and found to be acceptable. 23 I. Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter. Section 27.19.030(2) of the zoning ordinance allows for Residential PUDs in R-2 zones with a minimum of two acres and up to four (4) dwelling units per acre. Density is to be established based upon environmental factors affecting the land, compatibility with surrounding land uses and impact on the adjacent neighborhood, availability of public infrastructure and services, and consistency with the Kalispell Growth Policy. Those factors are addressed through the evaluations of the PUD and plat in Sections III and IV of this report. Overall, the PUD contains 110.5 acres and is proposed at 3.2 units per acre. Based upon those evaluations, density up to four units per acre is appropriate and the proposal meets that requirement. No specific deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations can be identified based upon the information submitted with the application other than those addressed in this report. IV. REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE MAJOR PRELIMINARY PLAT 24 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. Access: The primary access to the subdivision will be provided from Tronstad Road, which is an existing road that connects with Highway 93 North to the west and Whitefish Stage Road to the east. The highway is a principal arterial, Whitefish Stage is a major collector, and Tronstad has a future classification as a major collector. Geology: The overall site is generally flat without any major topographical or geological features limiting development. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical report from Allwest dated January 27, 2023. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 10-22.5 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. During the engineering design review of infrastructure for the development, recommended pavement sections and trench backfill may need to be modified to meet the City’s Standards for Design and Construction. Lands Unsuitable for Subdivision: The subdivision does not contain any hazards listed under Section 28.3.03 of the Subdivision Regulations that cannot be eliminated or mitigated by approved design and construction plans. 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 15 per square mile, but no significant elk or moose habitat. In addition, the Environmental Assessment provided by the applicant showed minimal wildlife habitat impacted by the development. 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. There is no surface water in terms of streams or lakes associated with the property. Per the Geotech report, the static groundwater is generally from 10-22.5 feet below the surface. Floodplain: There is no floodplain associated with the property (DFIRM Map 30029C1415J, effective date November 4, 2015). 25 Drainage: Roadways will be paved and curb/gutter will channel runoff to designed low points, where storm water will be collected and routed to storm water ponds. Any open storm water facilities should have an elevated aesthetic design to be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Public Works Departments. Storm water runoff from the site will 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. It should be noted that stormwater mains shown below and outside of curbing do not meet City Standards and will have to be relocated to comply with City Standards for Design and Construction. Likewise, inlets located in the radii of curbs at intersections will also have to be relocated. 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 or parcels. As part of the drainage areas, the association will be required to mow the area to reduce fire hazard and reduce spread of noxious weeds. 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. Wetland and Watercourse Setbacks: Under Section 28.3.06 of the subdivision regulations, a minimum 100-foot setback is required from wetlands to any proposed lot boundaries. Under Section 28.3.07, there is a minimum setback from rivers and streams which allows only limited uses. There are no wetlands or streams which would impact the subdivision under those provisions. Buffering: As a residential development, there are no specific zoning or subdivision regulations that would require buffering between the subdivision and any adjacent properties. However, the applicant is intending to include a buffer maintaining to the extent possible an existing band of trees which were planted along portions of the property line and appropriate buffering can be included as a part of the PUD. The trees would be in a common area and would include a walking trail. The developer should work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan that would be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Department. A condition requiring the buffer should be included in the conditions of approval. Topsoil and erosion: Existing topsoil should be preserved to the extent possible. As noted with drainage, an erosion/sediment control plan must be submitted to Public Works prior to construction and storm water facilities will need to be installed that are designed and constructed according to the Standards for Design and Construction. As noted in the 26 Environmental Assessment submitted by the applicant, there is a minimal amount of native vegetation on the property and, due to the natural terrain, will be only a minimal amount of cut and fill as part of the grading plan. These standards will help preserve topsoil and minimize erosion from the development. D. Effects on Local Services: Water: Water service to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell. The developer will tie into an existing water main in Tronstad Road approximately 500 feet to the west of the property and extend the main through the subdivision. The existing water main will be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. If Public Works requires the main to be oversized beyond the size needed to serve the development, the city may either participate in the upsize of the water main or allow for the creation of a latecomer agreement for the developer to recoup the oversize costs. Within the subdivision, water mains shall be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. Oversized extensions may be required to the northern extent of Open Range Terrace (the most easterly north south road) and the eastern extent of Fallow Loop (northerly east west road with street extension to adjacent parcel) to establish logical extensions of the water transmission main network. A water main connection to the Silverbrook Well as shown in the preliminary drawings is important. If not completed, another looping connection may be required. The water system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision under the Standards for Design and Construction. There is adequate capacity within the city’s water system to accommodate this subdivision with the connection. Proportionate water rights are required to be dedicated to the City of Kalispell per Section 28.3.08 of the subdivision regulations. Only water rights controlled by the developer are to be dedicated. There is an existing agricultural well (the Koenig Well) that will be transferred to the city along with adequate space for a municipal water well facility building. Cursory evaluation of the well logs indicates the existing well may be utilized as a test well and a new, larger well may be drilled adjacent to the existing well for municipal purposes. Appropriate space for a well facility will need to be dedicated as a utility lot to the City of Kalispell along with necessary easements or right-of-way needed to accommodate connection(s) and access to the well facility from the dedicated street right-of-way. Additionally, development design shall accommodate a 100’ well protection zone as required by Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the existing and/or future well. As part of the project, existing irrigation main and power lines will need to be removed. The water distribution system for the subdivision must be designed to serve the development regardless of the onsite well facility. In the event that neither the existing well nor a replacement well is suitable for connection to the city system, the water rights would be utilized by the city in a separate location. 27 Sewer: Sewer service to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell. The developer will tie into an existing main in Tronstad Road approximately 500 feet to the west of the property and extend the main through the subdivision. The existing sanitary sewer main would be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. A capacity analysis of downstream gravity main, force main, and lift stations will need to be performed with each phase of development. Upgrades required to accommodate sanitary sewage flows from the development will be required to be completed as part of the project development and any associated costs will be borne by the development. Within the subdivision, sewer mains will need to be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. Minimum slope installations may be required to accommodate future logical extensions. The sewer system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision under the Standards for Design and Construction. There is adequate capacity within the city’s sewer system to accommodate this subdivision with the connection. Access and Roads: The access to the subdivision will be provided from Tronstad Road, which is an existing road that connects with Highway 93 North to the west and Whitefish Stage Road to the east. Under the Transportation Plan, the highway is a principal arterial, Whitefish Stage is a major collector, and Tronstad has a future classification as a major collector. The frontage of the property along Tronstad Road would need to be improved to an urban major collector standard in accordance with the Transportation Plan and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Full width improvements are required on the development side of the street including, but not necessarily limited to curb and gutter, street signage, striping, sidewalk, street lighting, boulevards and landscaping. Minimum improvements on the eastbound lane of Tronstad Road shall include full lane width and shoulder. Improvements to a major collector shall include the dedication of ten (10) additional feet of right-of-way along the frontage in order to install the required standard improvements. In addition, the developer is “also committed to upgrading the portion of County Road that fronts the Koenig Subdivision so that there is a city width road from the west end of Quail Meadows to the east end of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing.” The upgrade would include a sidewalk, but may not include a landscape boulevard, or may have a modified boulevard, due to the width of the right-of-way at that location. There would be one minor collector street within the subdivision (Apex Drive), which is shown on the plat as the 80-foot middle north-south street. No driveway access is allowed onto the collector street and driveways will need to be from the local street side of the lot. Other internal streets would be designated as local streets. All internal streets will be built to the collector or local design standards as appropriate pursuant to the 28 Standards for Design and Construction including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. Provisions for future connectivity to adjacent properties to allow for the future extension of city streets and utilities to any development that may occur in the future is provided for. Interconnectivity is a key aspect of subdivision design under city regulations, including Sections 28.3.04(D) and 28.3.13(C) of the Subdivision Regulations. In addition, Sections 28.3.13 and 28.4.14 of the Subdivision Regulations includes access, street and road design standards that will be part of the engineering design review prior to construction. Alleys are not required under Section 28.3.15 of the Subdivision Regulations. Due to the number of lots generating more than 300 vehicle trips per day, a traffic impact study (“TIS”) is required under city regulations and developments are required to maintain or improve the level of service of existing roadways and intersections. The applicant provided an updated TIS from Abelin Traffic Services dated July 2024. The study analyzed the projected impacts of the proposed development on roadway capacity and intersections. Abelin also provided a letter dated September 25, 2024, which clarified certain aspects of the study. The TIS concluded the proposed subdivision would not create any roadway capacity issues provided that mitigation measures are implemented, specifically a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 93 North and Tronstad Road. In regard to Whitefish Stage, the TIS indicated that improvements may not be necessary. While the TIS does show a drop in the level of service at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road and Tronstad Road, the drop is related to a private drive which is not an intersection requiring mitigation under city design standards. Additional analysis and amendments to the TIS may also be required as phases of development are completed. According to the TIS and supplemental letter, Tronstad has sufficient capacity to carry the projected traffic related to the development. The letter refers to the Federal Highway Administration National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which suggests a capacity for suburban collector roadways of 700 passenger cars per hour per lane. Per the letter, “the projected peak-hour one-way traffic volume on Tronstad Road is 200-300 [cars per hour per lane], which is well below the roadway capacity.” It also addressed the paved width of Tronstad, which is approximately 22 feet, and noted that “collector roadways typically have a lane width of 11-12 feet. The difference in capacity between a roadway with 11-foot lanes and 12-foot lanes is minimal and typically roadways with wider lanes have higher vehicle speeds.” Additionally, “collector roads with widths less than 24 feet are common” in the area and include roads with similar traffic volumes such as Two Mile Drive, Helena Flats, Conrad Drive, West Evergreen, East Reserve, and Halfmoon Road. The letter further states that portions of Tronstad not improved to the city standard would still operate at an acceptable level of service in terms of volume to capacity. In regard to the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road, the letter states that the traffic signal warrants will be met based on the anticipated traffic from Tronstad and that “it would be desirable for the design and construction of the [signal to] commence and be installed prior to the build-out of homes in Phase 1.” While there are several factors 29 related to the specific timing of the signal, “it is recommended that design of the traffic signal for Highway 93 and Tronstad Road commence as soon as possible, and the signal be installed prior to the build-out of homes in Phase 1.” The TIS itself does not specify at what specific point in the phasing of the development the traffic signal would be warranted. Based on the annexation request discussion in this report, the supplemental letter from Abelin, and the current status of the intersection with a limited ¾ movement, it would be appropriate for the traffic signal to be installed in conjunction with the first phase of development, including rebuilding the intersection. 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 should be that it be installed as early as allowed by MDT, and no later than prior to final plat of Phase 2. MDT provided the city with a letter dated May 15, 2024, which agreed conceptually with certain improvements for the intersection subject to an approved engineering design and, among other things, a developer’s agreement. In a nutshell, MDT would allow the majority of the intersection improvements to occur prior to the first phase of the subdivision. Improvements would include the road realignment, a northbound right turn lane onto Tronstad, the reconstruction of left turn lanes on the highway, and underground infrastructure for the signals. In addition, MDT agreed to pay the cost of realigning the northbound and southbound left turn lanes. Phase II of the intersection improvements would be the installation of the traffic signal and any needed ADA or pedestrian facilities at the intersection. The timing of the installation of the signal would need to be based on MDT approval, which would not only take actual homes constructed into account, but also potentially other background data which could accelerate the timing. In order to help mitigate traffic issues, all of the improvements allowed by MDT prior to Phase 1 should be installed prior to final plat. Given the need for improvements and MDT’s willingness to allow certain improvements to be installed prior to Phase 1, the improvements (other than the traffic signal and other improvements designated as Phase II of the intersection improvements) should be installed prior to final plat of Phase 1 and not be eligible for bonding under a subdivision improvement agreement or other mechanism. The Intersection Phase II improvements should have an approved design and be bonded for as part of the final plat of Phase 1 of the subdivision unless MDT allows them to be installed prior to Phase 1, in which case those improvements shall be installed as well and not bonded for. As a note relative to bonding, there are a number of acceptable forms of providing security for subdivision improvement agreements under the subdivision regulations, including, but not limited to, performance bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, and cash. For improvements within the MDT right-of-way, security with MDT is sufficient if it meets city standards without double-bonding for the same improvement. Additionally, subdivision regulations (Sec 28.3.25) require that the final plat include a note stating that “The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for 30 the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which specifically benefit this subdivision.” Schools: The property is within the boundaries of School District #5 (Edgerton Elementary) and Glacier High School. On average, it would be anticipated that there would be about 178 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. 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 62 is located approximately 2.75 miles away providing good response time. In addition, the City has a future fire station site planned on the north side of Silverbrook approximately one mile to the northwest. Parks and Recreation: Subdivision regulations require a minimum of 0.03 acres of parkland per dwelling unit for single-family lots, or 10.65 acres for the 355 single- family/townhome lots (or the equivalent value in land with improvements). The plat identifies 11.73 acres of park area, although some of the area may not be included as park area depending upon the impact of storm drainage facilities and other features which could impact the land as usable area for recreational purposes. The parks may include amenities that will be determined during the course of the detailed subdivision design review in conjunction with the Parks Department. The applicant is also intending to include a buffer maintaining to the extent possible an existing band of trees which were planted along portions of the property line. The trees would be in a common area and would include a walking trail. The developer should work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan that would be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Department. A condition requiring the buffer should be included in the conditions of approval. It is imperative that these areas be well maintained for the visual aspects of the project and the functionality of the parks, open space, and storm drainage areas. The applicant included their draft covenants for the homeowners’ association with their application. The covenants contain provisions for the maintenance of the parks and other common facilities as well as assessments for funding the maintenance. While the covenants are a typical and reliable method of maintaining those features, subdivisions in the city also typically include a condition that a note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district, and staff would 31 recommend its inclusion. 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 collection can be provided throughout the subdivision 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 4.0 miles from the site. Mail: Under Section 28.3.24 of the Subdivision Regulations, a common mail delivery site or sites should be located and designed in conjunction with the Post Office and pursuant to listed design standards. E. Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: The property is undeveloped, although recent use of the property has been for agricultural purposes. According to the Kalispell Growth Policy Resources and Analysis Section, “Important Farmlands” map, the property may contain some prime farmland if irrigated. The growth policy in Chapter 5 on the Natural Environment, while recognizing the importance of minimizing the impact of development, also includes goals stating that the City should “encourage higher density mixed use developments on lands within and close to the city limits” (Goal 7); “discourage large lot developments without public infrastructure” (Goal 8); and “encourage urban growth only on agricultural lands entirely within the City’s annexation policy boundary” (Policy 5). The property is adjacent to the city limits and lies within the annexation policy boundary. The purpose behind those goals and policies is to keep growth within an area immediately around existing urban growth utilizing city services, such as sewer. By keeping growth in those areas and supported by infrastructure, agricultural areas in the valley as a whole are better protected than by allowing sprawl to consume outlying areas. With the location of the property immediately adjacent to the city limits and within the existing annexation boundary, and with the proximity of city services, the development of the property would be substantially consistent with the goals and policies of the growth policy as it relates to agriculture. By allowing higher density development within the city’s growth policy area, it can reasonably be expected that more farmland can be conserved because of the availability of residential and commercial lots within the Kalispell Growth Policy boundary, limiting sprawl/leapfrog development. There are no direct impacts on adjoining agricultural uses. 32 F. Relation to the Kalispell Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential, which anticipates residential development at up to four units per acre in zoning districts R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4. The proposed zoning is R-2, which is one of the districts specifically provided for in a Suburban Residential area, and the density is approximately 3.2 units per acre, less than the allowed amount. 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. The property is adjacent to the city limits and is located inside the annexation boundary established in the growth policy. Other specific provisions of the growth policy which support the annexation and development of the property are discussed in Section I(A) of this report relative to the annexation evaluation. The proposed subdivision is in substantial compliance with those goals and policies. G. Compliance with Zoning: The request is in compliance with the R-2 zoning regulations applicable to the development, subject to the deviations from the zoning regulations requested under the PUD. H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This request complies with the provisions of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations applicable to the development, including the design and dimensions of lots as specified in Section 28.3.11 of the Subdivision Regulations. No deviations from the subdivision regulations were requested as part of the PUD. RECOMMENDATIONS (1) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-24-08 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city R-2 (Residential) with a PUD overlay. (2) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPUD-24-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing PUD be approved subject to the conditions listed below: (3) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopt staff report #KPP- 24-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing be approved subject to the conditions listed below: 33 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. (Section 28.2.06(E)(7), Subdivision Regulations) 3. Upon approval of the preliminary PUD by the City Council, the property owner shall proceed with the preparation of the final PUD plan as provided in Section 27.19.020(7) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 4. As a PUD with an associated preliminary plat application, the abandonment or expiration of the PUD is governed by Section 27.19.020(10) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 5. The Planned Unit Development for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing allows the following deviations from the Zoning Regulations: (a) Lot Size: Sec 27.05.040(1) – Under the R-2 zone, minimum lot size is typically 10,000 square feet. The proposal includes lots ranging generally from 6000 square feet to 12,000 square feet, with the largest lot being 19,879 square feet. This deviation allows lot sizes substantially as shown on the proposed plat. (b) Use (Accessory Dwelling Units and Short Term Rentals): Sec 27.05.020 and 27.05.030 – This deviation is proposed by the applicant and would prohibit accessory dwelling units and short term rentals within the subdivision. (c) Lot Width: Sec 27.040(2) – The minimum lot width in the R-2 zone is 70 feet. This request would reduce the lot width for some of the smaller lots to 50-70 feet. This deviation allows lot widths substantially as shown on the proposed plat. (d) Lot Coverage: Sec 27.040(5) – The maximum lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 35%. This deviation maintains the 35% maximum on all lots that are 10,000 square feet or more and would allow up to 40% on smaller lots. (e) Setbacks: Sec 27.05.040(3) – The minimum side setback in the R-2 is 10 feet and the minimum side corner setback is 20 feet. This deviation reduces the side setback for lots that are 8000 square feet or less (plus Lots 63 and 303) and reduces the side corner setback to 15 feet for corner lots of several blocks on the interior of the development specified in the application. 6. 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 fixture 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 34 and meets the required safety guidelines. It is intended that when the project is developed the ponds will act as features, particularly along the roadways, rather than a private maintenance utility facility. (Section 28.3.17, Subdivision Regulations) 7. 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 of any phase, 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. (Section 28.3.17, Subdivision Regulations) 8. 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. (Section 28.3.18, Subdivision Regulations) 9. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 10. New infrastructure required to serve the subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell’s Standards for Design and Construction. All design work shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This infrastructure shall include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. (Section 28.3.14 & 20, Subdivision Regulations) 11. 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 of any phase, 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. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 12. Any water rights associated with the property shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell per Section 28.3.08 of the subdivision regulations. Only water rights controlled by the developer are to be dedicated. 13. The existing water main shall be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. Within the subdivision, water mains shall be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 35 14. The existing agricultural well (the Koenig Well) shall be transferred to the city along with adequate space for a municipal water well facility building. Appropriate space for a well facility shall be dedicated as a utility lot to the City of Kalispell along with necessary easements or right-of-way needed to accommodate connection(s) and access to the well facility from dedicated street right-of-way. Additionally, development design shall accommodate a 100’ well protection zone as required by Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the existing and/or future well. As part of the project, existing irrigation main and power lines shall be removed. In the event that neither the existing well nor a replacement well is suitable for connection to the city system, the water rights would be utilized by the city in a separate location. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 15. The existing sanitary sewer main shall be extended within the paved portion of Tronstad Road from a connection point near the eastern limits of Quail Meadows to the development’s eastern property line. Within the subdivision, sewer mains shall be extended in the paved portions of the proposed streets to the far extents of the property. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 16. A capacity analysis of downstream gravity main, force main, and lift stations shall be performed with each phase of development. Upgrades required to accommodate sanitary sewage flows from the development will be required to be completed as part of the project development and any associated costs will be borne by the development. (Section 28.3.20, Subdivision Regulations) 17. The developer shall submit the street designs to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. In addition, Sections 28.3.13 and 28.4.14 of the Subdivision Regulations includes access, street and road design standards that shall be part of the engineering design review. (Section 28.3.13,14, & 16 Subdivision Regulations) 18. The frontage of the property along Tronstad Road shall be improved to an urban major collector standard in accordance with the Transportation Plan and the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Full width improvements are required on the development side of the street including, but not necessarily limited to curb and gutter, street signage, striping, sidewalk, street lighting, boulevards and landscaping. Minimum improvements on the eastbound lane of Tronstad Road shall include full lane width and shoulder. Improvements to a major collector shall include the dedication of ten (10) additional feet of right-of-way along the frontage in order to install the required standard improvements. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 19. The developer shall upgrade the portion of Tronstad Road that fronts the Koenig Subdivision so that there is a city width road from the west end of Quail Meadows to the east end of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing. The upgrade shall include a sidewalk. (PUD condition/Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 36 20. Within the subdivision, there is one minor collector street and the remainder are local streets. All internal streets shall be built to the collector or local design standards as appropriate pursuant to the Standards for Design and Construction including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 21. 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. Additional analysis and amendments to the TIS may also be required as phases of development are completed. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 22. All of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection improvements allowed by MDT prior to Phase 1 of the subdivision shall be installed prior to final plat. The improvements (other than the traffic signal and other improvements designated by MDT as Phase II of the intersection improvements) shall be installed prior to final plat of Phase 1 and shall not be eligible for bonding under a subdivision improvement agreement or other mechanism. The Intersection Phase II improvements shall have an approved design and shall be bonded for as part of the final plat of Phase 1 of the subdivision unless MDT allows them to be installed prior to Phase 1, in which case those improvements shall be installed as well and shall not bonded for. All intersection improvements shall be fully installed prior to final plat of Phase 2. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 23. 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.” 24. The recommendations in the Geotech report shall be followed. (Section 28.3.10, Subdivision Regulations) 25. Prior to final plat of any phase, 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. (Section 28.2.09(E), Subdivision Regulations) 26. 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. (Section 28.3.21, Subdivision Regulations) 27. Per Section 28.3.21 of the Subdivision Regulations, 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 37 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 28. 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. (Section 28.3.24, Subdivision Regulations) 29. A homeowner’s association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of the common areas, including, but not necessarily limited to, roads, parks and open space. (Section 28.3.17 & 22, Subdivision Regulations) 30. 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. (Section 28.3.23, Subdivision Regulations) 31. 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. (Section 28.3.14, Subdivision Regulations) 32. A park plan shall be created and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to final plat. (Section 28.3.22, Subdivision Regulations) 33. The developer shall work in conjunction with the Parks Department as part of the overall parks and landscaping plan to provide a buffering plan subject to the review and approval of the Parks Department. 34. 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. (Section 28.3.22, Subdivision Regulations) 35. 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 38 Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. (Section 28.3.17, Subdivision Regulations) 36. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. (Section 28.8.01, Subdivision Regulations) 37. 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. (Section 28.3.21(C), Subdivision Regulations) 38. All areas disturbed during development shall be re-vegetated with a weed-free mix immediately after development. (Section 28.3.02, Subdivision Regulations) Prepared by August 2024 Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Annexation, PUD, and Preliminary Plat Applications TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING 1 Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Annexation/Zoning Supplemental Information a. Promoting the Growth Policy The Kalispell Growth Policy Map designates the subject property with a Suburban Residential Designation. The applicant intends to annex into the City if the City expands the Annexation Boundary. With the Annexation and PUD, the applicant is also submitting a Subdivision Application. The R-2 zoning designation is generally considered in conformance with the Growth Policy’s Suburban Residential designation. Figure 1 Source: City of Kalispell Growth Policy – Plan-It 2035 Area included in the annexation Boundary per Resolution 6197A Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Property Quail Meadows annexed in the City TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING 2 b. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access The subject property fronts on Tronstad Road which is currently a county-maintained road. Tronstad Road serves as a collector road for the area. As a condition of approval for the nearby Quail Meadows Subdivision, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) required the developer to limit turning movements at Tonstad Road and U.S. Highway 93 with the installation of a “porkchop”. The installed “porkchop” currently forces west bound traffic on Tronstad Road to make right turning movements only. With the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing project, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was performed by Abelin Traffic Services to address the traffic impacts associated with this project and also improve overall levels of service. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project. The TIS recommends a traffic signal be placed at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. Tables 4-7 compare the Level of Service (LOS) at the Tronstad/93 intersection with the existing configuration and the development proposed signalized intersection in Table 8. Peak AM and PM LOS goes from a C/B and C/C in 2026 to B and A with the signal and development which is a significant improvement at the intersection. In addition to improving LOS, the traffic signal eliminates the “porkchop” restriction for west bound traffic on Tronstad and encourages more traffic to Highway 93 as opposed to Whitefish Stage. c. Promoting safety from fire panic and other dangers The property is currently in the West Valley Volunteer Fire District and Flathead County Sheriff’s jurisdiction. With annexation, the fire and police duties will transfer to the City of Kalispell Fire Department and the Kalispell City Police Department. The property is not located within a 100- year flood zone and there are no steep slopes to be concerned with on the property. A Geotechnical investigation was performed by Allwest and no significant hazards were identified. Groundwater was observed from 10 to 22-feet well in excess of the eight feet identified as potential for impact. d. Promoting Public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general welfare As the City of Kalispell has designated the subject property for Suburban Residential development in its Growth Policy, the property would appear to be an appropriate location for such land use. Any development of the subject property will be subject to the rules and regulations of the following agencies: Kalispell Public Works Department, the Kalispell Planning Department, the Kalispell Building Department, the Montana Department of Transportation Department, Montana Department of Environmental Quality along with others. The rules these departments administer are designed to promote the health and safety of the general public. e. Preventing the overcrowding of land The Kalispell Growth Policy has identified this property for Suburban Residential uses. The Kalispell Growth Policy, Plan-It 2035 designates the property as Suburban Residential (Figure 1) and is described “Low Density residential (suburban) neighborhoods should be developed at a density that does not exceed 4 dwelling unit per acre on an overall site basis. The Growth TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING 3 Policy goes onto provide for; “An integrated development plan within the suburban neighborhood could include: a. Single family homes on lots down to 5,000 square feet, b. Zero lot line and patio homes, when accompanied by ample open space and common areas, c. Townhomes The proposed plat of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing consist of 355 single family detached lots on 110 acres. The density works out to 3.2 units per acre. We are utilizing the PUD zoning tool to shift density within the development where the larger 10,000 square foot lots ring the project and the smaller 6,000 square foot lots are located on the interior of the subdivision. The subject development complies with the City’s long range plans for density in this area. f. Avoiding undue concentration of population The proposed development is proposing 3.2 dwellings per acre which is below the 4 units prescribed in the Growth Policy. The proposed project will be constructed to City standards with full street scape and parks. In addition, the project will improve the intersection of Tronstad/93 with the installation of a traffic signal as warranted in the traffic study. The applicant will also upgrade Tronstad for its frontage and in front of the Koenig Subdivision. They developers will transfer their rights to 1000 gpm well to the City of Kalispell pursuant to regulatory requirements. g. Facilitating the adequate provisions of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public facilities. The project accesses Tronstad Road which connects to Highway 93 on the west and Whitefish Stage on the east. The applicant will be required to upgrade Tronstad to City Standards, including sidewalk for its frontage. The developers is volunteering to upgrade Tronstad in front of Koenig subdivision as well. Lastly, the applicants have worked with MDOT on a design for the Tronstad intersection and the geometric improvements will be installed with Phase 1. The applicants will provide the MDOT a financial guarantee for the cost of the signal so that MDOT can install the signal as soon as they are ready. Water and sewer mains are located in Tronstad and serve the neighboring Quail Meadows subdivision. The proposed development will extend these services into the project and to the north and east boundaries. The property has a 1000 gpm well that has tested with excellent water quality. The developer’s portion of the water right to the well will be transferred to the City. The development is in the Kalispell school system and will contribute to the schools for K-12 grades. Park lands are proposed on the site with over eleven acres of park. h. Giving reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses The subject property is adjacent to the City Limits of Kalispell and located within the annexation boundary. The property has good access to a road network. The property is flat with no environmentally sensitive lands. The City’s Growth Policy designates the property for Suburban Residential and the proposed single family lots support the vision of the long range planning document. TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING 4 i. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings The proposed R-2 zoning and PUD complies with the long range plans of the City. New development will be subject to the City’s building code review. The new development will provide parkland as required . The annexation will conserve the value of buildings. j. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth The annexation and zoning will promote the City’s long range vison for land use. The City’s existing development standards will ensure that any development happens in an orderly fashion and without impact services to its citizens. Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative 1 Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative a. Narrative: The Tronstad Meadows PUD is a mixed density PUD utilizing an underlying zoning of R- 2 to create 355 single family lots. This new layout is a reduction of 25 lots over the previous proposal. The lots range in size from 6,000 to 11,000 square feet. To address neighborhood input, the subdivision is ringed by the larger 10,000+ square foot lots and the smaller lots are located on the interior of the development. We have placed a park/open space along the entire western boundary to preserve the tree belt and to provide a walking trail. The larger lots and open space are intended to buffer the neighboring suburban lots. The Tronstad Road is the south boundary and consists of approximately 1500 feet of frontage. The subdivision will have two connections to Tronstad and this portion of road will be upgraded to City of Kalispell standards. The applicant is also committed to upgrading the portion of County Road that fronts the Koenig Subdivision so that there is a City width road from west end of Quail Meadows to the east end of Tornstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing. The Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Development is proposed in four phases starting at the south east and rotating counter clockwise. Each phase will be capable of standing on it’s own. Within the PUD we are proposing a number of parks ranging in size from 0.69 acres to 2.09 acre and include a dog park, a children’s playground area, and a walking trail. The parks and common areas will be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained. The Kalispell Subdivision regulations require 0.03 acres of parkland for a single family lot. With 355 lots, the subdivision will be required to dedicate 10.65 acres. We are showing 11.41 acres of park and open space. There will be amenities within the parks that include playground equipment, a dog park area and walking trails. The park and amenities greatly exceed the parkland dedication requirements. b. Phasing The Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Development is proposed in four phases starting at the south east and rotating counter clockwise. Phase 1 is proposed to begin construction in 2025 and completion in the summer of 2026. With Phase 1, the applicant will reconstruct the intersection of Tronstad/Silverbrook and Highway 93 to include left hand turn lanes on the east and west legs, Tronstad Rd and Silverbrook Dr, and installing all of the infrastructure for traffic signals at the intersection. The developer will provide the MDOT a financial guarantee for the traffic lights so that the MDOT can install the lights as soon as they deem appropriate. Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative 2 Phase 2 of the project would go to construction in 2026 and be finished in 2027. The subsequent phases will be completed approximately every two years c. Deviations from the R-2 Zoning Use - No deviations in Use Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) and short term rentals are not proposed or allowed in this project. This restriction will be placed in the CC&R’s for the project. Lot Size – The lot size will go down to 6000 square feet but will not exceed the Suburban Residential Density of four units per acre. The subdivision design rings the development with 10,000 square foot lots meeting the underlying R-2 bulk and dimensional standards but the lots get smaller towards the center of the development with lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. Lot Width – Minimum lot width is 50 feet. Lot Coverage – 35% lot coverage for any lot 10,000 square feet or greater and 40% for any lot less than 10,000 square feet. Setback – Reduce the side yard setback from 10-feet to 5-feet for all lots of 8,000 square feet or less and including Lot 63 and 303. Reduce the side corner setbacks for the following lots from 20-feet to 15-feet: Lots 84, 83, 72, 71, 54, 53, 36, 35, 18, 202, 181, 180, 159, 158, 141, 140, 148, 169, 170, 191, 192, 28, 43, 63, 64, 78, 303, 287, 260, 259, 240, 239, 221, 220, 209, 208, 133, 225, 235, 244, 255, 264, 283, 282, 265, 254, 245, 234, and 226. d. Parks and Common Areas Within the PUD we are proposing a number of parks ranging in size from 0.69 acres to 2.09 acre and include a dog park, a children’s playground area, and a walking trail. The parks and common areas will be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained. The Kalispell Subdivision regulations require 0.03 acres of parkland for a single family lot. With 355 lots, the subdivision will be required to dedicate 10.65 acres. We are showing 11.41 acres of park and open space. There will be amenities within the parks that include playground equipment, a dog park area and walking trails. The park and amenities greatly exceed the parkland dedication requirements. e. Utilities, roads, and local services. With the PUD there is a preliminary plat application with an Environmental Assessment that addresses roads, utilities, and local services. In addition, we are submitting preliminary water, sewer, stormwater and road designs with the preliminary plat application. Water Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative 3 and sewer facilities were extended along Tronstad Road with the construction of the Quail Meadows subdivision. The City of Kalispell is currently constructing a new one million gallon water tower that will support growth and development in the north Kalispell area. The proposed subdivision also has a 1000 gpm irrigation well on-site and the applicant will dedicate their portion of the water right associated with the irrigation well to the City. f. Neighborhood relationship Kalispell’s current Growth Policy shows the subject property within the annexation boundary for the City. The Growth Policy designates the property and neighboring lands as Suburban Residential which allows up to four units per acre. The uses to the west include City scale development and infrastructure along with commercial uses along the highway developed under the County Zoning ordinance. Property to the north, south and west are more suburban agricultural in use. Tronstad Road, a County Collector, is the southern boundary of the project and provided east/west connectivity between Whitefish Stage and Highway 93. With the development of Quail Meadows directly west and Stillwater Village on the west side of Highway 93, a “porkchop” was installed at Tronstad and 93 for west bound traffic to restrict/prohibit left turn movements onto the Highway. Across the Highway at Silver Brook Drive a “porkchop” will also be installed to prohibit east bound traffic from making a left turn. These “porkchops” are problematic for people living I the neighborhood. With the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing project these “porkchops” will be eliminated and replaced with turn lanes and a traffic signal. With Phase 1, the applicant will reconstruct the intersection of Tronstad/Silverbrook and Highway 93 to include left hand turn lanes on the east and west legs of Tronstad Rd and Silverbrook Dr., and installing all of the infrastructure for traffic signals at the intersection. The developer will provide the MDOT a financial guarantee for the traffic lights so that the MDOT can install the lights as soon as they deem appropriate. The proposed intersection improvements will restore acceptable level of service at this intersection and eliminate the need for the porkchops and restricted turning movements. This will benefit not just this development but all of the surrounding neighborhoods including Silverbrook. The proposed development provides a beneficial relationship by providing housing for people of Kalispell and the Flathead Valley in a central location on City Services similar to the Silverbrook development on the west side of Highway 93. g. Consideration of neighborhood character If we looked at the neighboring character today it is primarily suburban agricultural. However, the City has recently annexed the neighboring property and the City has annexed the west side of the Highway all the way up to Church Drive. To the south the City has expanded east from Highway 93 to Whitefish Stages and is developing urban scale Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative 4 projects. With City services in Tronstad Road the proposed project appears to be a logical area of expansion for the City of Kalispell. The conversion of suburban agricultural use to urban/suburban use is a common outcome all along the edges of the City. The proposed conversion to suburban residential will change the character just like Siver Brook Estates, Quail Meadows, Stillwater Estates, Eagle Valley Ranch, Stillwater Bend, West View Estates, Starling, Meadows Edge, Spring Creek Estates, Parkland Meadows, etc. In addition to needed housing, the proposed development will offer several benefits to the neighborhood. Addressing the intersection at Tronstad and Highway 93 with a traffic signal, improving Tronstad Road to Collector standards for it’s frontage and west connecting to the improvements made in Quail Meadows, providing pedestrian ways within and around the development, and providing substantial water rights to the City. h. Intensive or incompatible uses As mentioned in “neighborhood character”, there is no doubt that the proposed development will increase density above the neighboring suburban agricultural uses. However, to develop projects on City Sewer and Water and provide the desired streetscape and pedestrian transportation networks, projects need to be developed at a suburban residential density in order to provide reasonable priced units. We could develop the property on two and a half acre lots with individual septic systems, a public water system and rural standard roads with no pedestrian access; and this would more closely match the neighboring suburban agricultural uses. However, a development of 50, two and a half acre, lots would be an inefficient use of the land and do very little to bring workforce housing to the valley. To lessen the visual impact on the one acre lots in the Koenig Subdivision to the west, the developer is proposing a 30 to 40-foot wide green belt that will preserve the existing trees and provide room for a walking path. i. Growth Policy Compliance The property is located within the annexation boundary of the City. The current Growth Policy designates the property as Suburban Residential and R-2 through R-4 zoning is considered appropriate in the Suburban Residential land use category. We are proposing the R-2 with a PUD overlay. j. Maps See attached PUD map Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Phasing Plan Phase 1 Lots 140 – 148 Tronstad Meadows; Lots 77 – 152 Whitetail Crossing; and Lots 166 – 182 Whitetail Crossing Build portions of Fallow Loop from Tronstad through to Open Range, Apex Dr. to Browtine; construct Browtine Street, Ousel Trail, Bandit Way, Crazy Horse Trail from Apex to Open Range Terrace. Construct Open Range Terrace north to Browtine Construct all parks within the phase. Upgrade Tronstad Road along the frontage of the subdivision and also upgrade Tronstad Road along the frontage of the Koenig Subdivision. Construct all supporting sewer water and stormwater facilities within the phase. Secure approval from City and MDOT for improvements to 93 and Tronstad Road intersection as indicated in the TIS. Construct the improvements at the intersection including signal infrastructure, east-west bound turn lanes on Tronstad Rd and Silverbrook Dr., and provide MDOT the financial guarantee for the traffic signal. Phase 2 Lots 1 – 77 Whitetail Crossing; Lots 153 – 163 Whitetail Crossing; and Lots 1 – 11 Tronstad Meadows Build/complete portions of Crow Trail, Fallow Loop, Parachute Tr, Jack Rabit Trail, Open Range Terrace and Apex Dr. within the phase boundary Construct all parks within the phase. Construct all supporting sewer water and stormwater facilities within the phase. Construct temporary turnaround at the west end of Jack Rabit Trail. Phase 3 Lots 12 – 83 Tronstad Meadows and Lots 166-173 Tronstad Meadows Build/complete portions of Fallow Loop, Browtine St, Crow Trail, Bobtail Way, and Parachute Tr within the phase boundary. Construct all parks and trails within the phase. Construct all supporting sewer water and stormwater facilities within the phase. Phase 4 Lots 74 – 139 Tronstad Meadows and Lots 149 – 165 Tronstad Meadows Build/complete portions of Ousel Trail, Bobtail Way, Axis Way, and Fallow Loop. Construct all parks and trails within the phase. Complete all supporting sewer water and stormwater facilities. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 1 Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Environmental Assessment General Instructions It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to submit the information required by this Section with the preliminary plat. This Environmental Assessment format shall be used by the applicant in compiling a thorough description of the potential impacts for the proposed subdivision. Each question pertinent to the proposal must be addressed in a full comprehensive and systematic fashion (both maps and text). Incomplete Environmental Assessments will not be accepted. The Environmental Assessment will be objectively measured to assure that all mandatory elements are included and that, based upon objective standards, all prospective impacts are adequately addressed. At a minimum the Environmental Assessment must contain the following for all assessment contents: a. Property Description b. A summary of probable impacts and statement of impact for each environmental consideration topic; c. A discussion to support the statement of impact; d. Referenced sources and citations to support the statement of impact; e. If applicable, site specific maps and documentation to support the statement of impact discussion. The sources of information for each section of the Assessment shall be identified. All Environmental Assessments shall contain the signature, date of signature and mailing address of the owner of the property and the person, or persons, preparing the report and citation and a copy of all supporting information. (Note: Any response to any section not specifically sourced in this report is attributed to the Author of the report.) Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 2 Section 1 – Resource Assessment and Impact Criteria Report 1. Surface Water: Locate on plat overlay or sketch map: The proposed subdivision is located north of Kalispell on Tronstad Road between US Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. There are no surface waters located on the subject property. The closest surface water is the Stillwater River located 0.86 miles to the west and the Whitefish River is located 1.3 miles to the east. A. Any natural water systems such streams intermittent streams, lakes and ponds, rivers, or marshes. There are no wetlands or surface waters located on the subject property. The closest surface water is the Stillwater River located 0.86 miles to the west. The Whitefish River is located 1.3 miles to the east. According to the USGS Wetland Mapper (Figure 1) there may be some fresh water emergent wetlands on the property east of the subject land. . Figure 1 Source: USGS Wetland Mapper. B. Any artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, aqueducts, reservoirs, irrigation or drainage systems. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 3 There is an irrigation well and center pivot sprinkler system associated with the property. The property owners, Whitetail Crossing LLC and Tronstad Meadows LLC, are the sole owners of the well/pivot and majority owner of the associated water right, Provisional Permit 76LJ 30011383. C. Time when water is present. There are no surface waters or times when surface water is present on the property. D. Any areas subject to flood hazard, or delineated 100-year floodplain. The subject property is outside of the mapped 100-year floodplain. C. Describe any existing to proposed stream bank alteration. There are no streams on or near the property so there will be no stream bank alterations. 2. Groundwater Using available data, provide the following information: A. The minimum depth to the water table or the historic water table and identify dates when depths were determined. What is the location and depth of all aquifers which may be affected by the proposed subdivision? Describe location of known aquifer recharge areas which may be affected. Two aquifers exist beneath the subject property. The occurrence of a shallow perched aquifer was mapped by Konizeski (et al) in 1968. Monitoring wells installed in the shallow perched aquifer on nearby properties indicate that the aquifer beneath the subject property has a water level that are anticipated to be 10 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). The shallow aquifer is recharged primarily from infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt in the valley floor. A review of area well logs confirm there are very few shallow wells in the vicinity of the proposed development. The deep artesian aquifer exists beneath the subject property and is the primary source of drinking water within the Flathead Valley. The aquifer is confined and underlies a relatively impermeable sequence of glacial till. A potentiometric surface map developed by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) in 2004 (LaFave, 2004). The map predicts a potentiometric surface of 2,925 feet above mean sea level (amsl) or a depth to water of approximately 100 feet. This is confirmed by the static water level in the on-site irrigation well, Ground Water Information Center Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 4 (GWIC) ID number 152969 which has a recorded water level of 104 feet. The deep alluvial aquifer is primarily recharged from infiltration of precipitation and snow melt along the margins of the Flathead Valley and groundwater flow is from the margins to the center of the valley south toward Flathead Lake. B. Describe any steps necessary to avoid depletion or degradation of groundwater recharge areas. Groundwater recharge to the deep alluvial aquifer occurs along the margins of the Flathead Valley and is not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed development. Proper collection, treatment, and discharge of stormwater within the subdivision will mitigate depletion or degradation of the shallow alluvial aquifer. 3. Topography, geology and soils A. Provide a map of topography of the area to be subdivided, and an evaluation of the suitability for the proposed land uses. On the map identify any areas with highly erodible soils or slopes in excess of 15% grade. Identify the lots or areas affected. Address conditions such as: i. Shallow Bedrock ii. Unstable slopes iii. Unstable or expansive soils iv. Excessive slope. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 5 Figure 2 See the preliminary plat map for topography. For the most part, the property is flat, with approximately fifteen feet of elevation difference from south to north. The change in elevation occurs over a distance of 2650 feet with an average slope of 0.5% Soils on the 110 acres are Blanchard fine sand (Be, Bf & Bh) with a larger percentage of Kalispell loam (Ke and Kh) in the east half of the site. (Figure 2). The Upper Flathead Valley Area Soils Survey states that Kalispell and Source: USDA -NRCS Web Soils Survey Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 6 Blanchard soils are deep, dark brown colored and sandy. The Blanchard soils are indicated as being in Hydrologic Soil Group “A” and the Kalispell loam soils are indicated as being in Hydrologic Soil Group “B”. The soils have no hydric rating. There is no presence of shallow bedrock on the property and the site consists of undulating topography with no excessive slopes. A geotechnical analysis conducted by Allwest determined that construction can be accommodated with the appropriate foundation system such as spread foundations, concrete mat foundations, and slab on grade. B. Locate on an overlay or sketch map. i. Any known hazards affecting the development which could result in property damage or personal injury due to: a. Falls, slides or slumps b. Rock outcroppings c. Seismic activity d. High water table The subject property is very gently rolling with an average slope of 0.5% from south to north. There is no presence of falls, slumps, rock outcroppings or high groundwater. The Geotechnical Report indicated that groundwater is 10 to 22 feet below ground surface (bgs). All of the Flathead Valley is in a seismic zone and the building code requirements enforced by the Kalispell Building Department requires mitigation in building design to address seismic activity. By annexing the proposed subdivision into the City of Kalispell, all building requirements must be in compliance with the City. C. Describe measures proposed to reduce these hazards. See answer above (3.B.i) D. Describe the location and amount of any cut or fill more than three feet in depth. The site will be designed to minimize and balance cut and fill as much as possible. However, due to the relative flatness of the site, there will be minor site grading required to ensure positive drainage and runoff associated with the increase in impervious area. Based on preliminary analysis of the site, it is anticipated that the only locations where more than three feet of cut will be required is the detention facilities necessary to store generated runoff. Volumes associate with any stormwater ponds will be determined as part of the design and approval of the subdivision. . 4. Vegetation Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 7 A. On a plat overlay or sketch map: i. Indicate the distribution of the major vegetation types, such as march, grassland, shrub, conifer forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest. Figure 3 Source -Flathead County GIS As indicated in the photo of Figure 3, the property is in agricultural production and this past year’s crop was hay. A previous owner planted a tree belt on the north and west boundary of the property. The tree belt will be retained on the western boundary with a open space area. On the northern boundary the trees will be in the back yards of the lots. Location of the Subdivision Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 8 i. Identify the location of critical plant communities. There are no critical plant communities on the subject parcel. The property has been under intensive agricultural production for decades and all native plant communities have been eliminated from the property. B. Describe measures to: i. Preserve trees and other natural vegetation ii. Protect critical plant communities iii. Prevent and control wild fire iv. Control and prevent the growth of noxious weeds As stated previously the property has been intensively farmed and there are no critical plant communities on the property. There are no trees on the property except for the planted tree belt on the north and west boundary of the property. The property will be developed to suburban densities, meaning that all vegetation will be removed, except for the tree belt, with the development of roads, homes, and yards. Everything that is not hardscaped will be planted with irrigated lawn and parks in accordance with City of Kalispell requirements. 5. Wildlife A. Identify species of fish and wildlife use of the area affected by the proposed subdivision. The property is heavily farmed with seasonal discing, planting, fertilizing, and harvesting of varying crop varieties. As such, it is primarily used by bird species that feed on spilled seed after harvest. There is little or no nesting on the site as it is continually disturbed during the cycles of farming activities. The bird species most commonly seen at the site are geese and ducks with the occasional birds of prey hunting rodents. Deer may cross the fields and graze but there is no cover for them to hide. B. On a copy of the preliminary plat, identify known critical wildlife areas. There is no known critical habitat on the property. C. Describe proposed measures to protect or enhance wildlife habitat. As there is no native vegetation or habitat on the property, there will not be any measure to protect or recreate habitat. There will be parks on the property, but these will be maintained park areas and not really wildlife habitats. 6. Land Use Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 9 A. Describe the existing historical use of the site The property has been in continuous agricultural production for many decades. B. Describe any comprehensive plan recommendations and other land use regulations on and adjacent to the site. Is zoning proposed? Is annexation proposed? The proposed subdivision is coming in for review with a number of accompanying applications. First is the annexation request and initial zoning to R-2. The second application is the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay of the R-2. The last application is the subdivision application which this Environmental Assessment contemplates. All applications are intended to be reviewed as a set as each affects the outcome of the other. C. Describe the present uses of the lands and adjacent to or near the proposed development. Describe how the subdivision will affect access to any adjoining land and/or what measures are proposed to provide access. The subject land is currently, and has been for many years, used for agricultural purposes. Lands to the north and east are also in agricultural production. Lands to the west are developed with a mix of one acre County lots (Koenig Subdivision), 6,000 square foot City lots (Quail Meadows), County Commercial uses along the U.S. Highway 93, and some suburban agricultural uses to the northeast. To the south is a mix of suburban agricultural uses, mini storage, and one acre lots of Ponderosa Pines. Access to the subdivision will be from two access points on Tronstad Road to the South. Tronstad is a County Road which will be upgraded to urban (City) standards for the frontage of the subdivision. The TIS produced for this subdivision indicates that a traffic Signal is warranted at the intersection of Tronstad and 93. Lastly the developer has indicated that they will install a sidewalk along Tronstad and connect it to the sidewalk at Quail Meadows. Tronstad Road will also be upgraded along the development frontage and in front of the Koenig Subdivision connecting with the improvements made at Quail Meadows. The proposed improvements to Tronstad will improve the level of service of this road not only for the benefit this subdivision but for all of the neighboring subdivisions and properties that use Tronstad Road. As required by the City’s Subdivision Regulations, Road reserves are extended to the property lines on the north, east and west boundaries for possible future connections. To be very specific, none of the traffic associated with the proposed subdivision will use neighboring subdivision roads for access to the broader transportations network. The access to the County road network is from the two connections with Tronstad Road on the south which meets the requirements for primary and secondary access within the development. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 10 D. Describe the basis of the need for the subdivision. How much development of a similar nature is or is not available in the area. The Flathead Valley is under immense pressure for housing of all types. The median housing price in Kalispell over the past years has gone from $332,000 in March of 2020 to $389,000 in March of 2021 and $599,000 in March of 2022 according to Zillow. This spike in housing price is directly attributable to lack of supply and a high demand. The Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Subdivision will offer two types of single-family detached residential dwellings. There will be 6,000 square feet on the interior of the subdivision which will be set at a lower price point while the larger 10,000 square foot lots that ring the project will be a higher end alternative in line with the looks and feel of the nearby Silverbrook Estates. E. Describe any health or safety hazards on or near the subdivision (mining activity, high voltage, lines, gas lines, agricultural activities, etc. There are no hazards that are known to exist on the property. We don’t really see neighboring farming activity as a hazard for future residents of the development. The subdivision could have some negative impacts on the farming with trespassing and damage to crops. F. Describe any on-site uses creating nuisance. The property is currently used for farming. The uses directly to the west and north are residential, commercial, and suburban agricultural. To the east is agricultural and to the south is suburban agricultural. The proposed use will be residential and should not create a nuisance unless it is a trespass on the agricultural uses to the east. Section II – Summary of Probable Impacts 1. Effects on Agriculture A. Is the proposed subdivision or associated improvement located on or near prime farmland The proposed subdivision is located in Blanchard Class IV and VI soils and Kalispell Class II Soils as defined by the Upper Flathead Valley Area Soils Survey prepared by the USDA (Figure 1). Class I through IV soils are considered prime farmland. However, the subject property is located adjacent to the City of Kalispell and the property is zoned R-2.5 which is a residential zone with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size. It is intended to be a transition from urban to AG and not intended for long term agricultural use. The City of Kalispell Growth Policy identifies the property for suburban growth. The City’s sewer and water infrastructure are in Tronstad Road approximately 500 feet from the subdivision. Based on the current county zoning and the long range growth policy designations, the subject property is identified for conversion to residential use. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 11 B. Describe whether the subdivision would remove from production any agricultural land. The subdivision will remove 110 acres from agricultural production. C. Describe possible conflicts with nearby agricultural operation. The 110 acre property is currently under agricultural use. As the development expands the farming activities on the site will disappear. The biggest conflict will be trespassing into the farm fields from residents of the project. Signage and perhaps plat notes can lessen some of the trespass. The subdivision road will be developed with sidewalks throughout, numerous parks, and a dog park. There should be little reason to trespass on the neighbors’ fields with ample walking paths in the subdivision. Right to Farm conditions could protect the farmer while farming is still an activity on the neighboring lands and alert the new neighbors that herbicides, pesticides, and dust can and do result from farming activities. D. Describe possible nuisance problems which may arise from locating a subdivision near agricultural lands. The City of Kalispell is surrounded by agricultural lands. If the City is to expand at all, then development will displace or be located near agricultural lands. The City’s long range planning documents identify the subject property for suburban residential use. E. Describe effects the subdivision would have on the value of nearby agricultural lands. The effect of land development adjacent to the City is that land values for housing have greatly exceeded land values for property that can only be used for agriculture. 2. Effects on Agricultural Water User Facilities A. Describe conflicts the subdivision would create with agricultural user facilities, eg residential development creating problems for operating or maintaining irrigation systems, etc. There is a 1,000 gpm well (GWIC ID 152969) and center-pivot irrigation system on the 110-acre property owned by Whitetail Crossing, LLC and Tronstad Meadows LLC. The previous owner did not grant easement or use of the well/pivot when the property was sold to any of the neighboring water right holders. As a result, the current owner is not obligated to continue the use of the center pivot irrigation system or the irrigation well for the benefit of the neighboring agricultural owners. The owners of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing can only transfer their water right to the City and nobody else’s water right. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 12 Provisional Permit 76LJ 30011383 allows for irrigation of up to 284.60 acres in Section 18, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. Per the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) water right abstract, the water right is co-owned by three entities, including Whitetail Meadows LLC, Tronstad Meadows LLC, and Brian Kelly. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing, the place of use associated with the water right includes property owned by Robert H. Koenig. The well (point of diversion) and approximately 39-percent of the place of use are owned by Whitetail Crossing LLC and Tronstad Meadows LLC. No easements granting the adjacent landowners and co-owners of the water right access to the well are in place. As such, in order for the other owners of the water right to continue irrigation under Provisional Permit 76LJ 30011383, a new point of diversion (well) will need to be drilled and an Application to Change an Existing Irrigation Water Right will need to be filed with the DNRC to add or change the point of diversion associated with the water right. B. Describe possible nuisance problems which the subdivision would generate with regard to agricultural water user facilities. As the developer, Whitetail Crossing, LLC and Tronstad Meadows LLC owns the well and center pivot irrigation system. There should be no nuisance with the use or non-use of the irrigation facility. Other water right holders are entitled to construct a new well and change the point of diversion to allow for diversion of irrigation water under the existing water right (Provisional Permit 76LJ 30011383). Doing so will require authorization to change the point of diversion associated with the water right from DNRC. 3. Effects on Local Services A. Indicate the proposed use and number of lots or spaces each: Residential, Single-Family Detached– There are 355 single family detached lots within the development. There are 173 lots in Tronstad Meadows and 182 lots in Whitetail Crossing. B. Describe the additional or expanded public services and facilities that would be required of the local government or special districts to serve the subdivision. i. Describe additional cost that would result for services such as roads, bridges, law enforcement, parks and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer, and solid waste systems, schools or busing. Streets - The developer will be responsible for constructing all of the streets within this subdivision. These streets will be constructed and financed by the developer and all the roads will be turned over to the City for long term maintenance and repair. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 13 Law enforcement - The City of Kalispell charges impact fees to shift the burden of the impact of development to the developer rather than the taxpayer at large. The impact fee for police is $41 per unit or $14,555 for 355 units. After the initial impact fees the units will pay their property taxes which would cover on-going costs. Parks and recreation – The project is proposing 11.87 acres of park which will also include park amenities. Based on the Kalispell subdivision regulations 0.03 acres of park is required for each residential lot. The 355 lots in the subdivision will be required to dedicate 10.65 acres of parkland. With the amenities placed in the parks, the development will greatly exceed the parkland dedication. Fire Protection – The developer will install all fire hydrants within the development, and these will be turned over to the city for long term maintenance. The city charges $483 per unit in impact fees for fire protection. The 355 units will pay $171,465.00 in impact fees and property taxes for the remainder. These fees are intended to provide equipment and buildings for the fire department. Water and Sewer – The developer installs all of the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities. In the development. At final plat the infrastructure is turned over to the City for long-term maintenance. The City charges impact fees of $1,900 for water, $2,879 for sewer, and $618 for stormwater. The 355 units generate $674,500 for water, $1,022,045.00 for sewer, and $219,390 for stormwater. These impact fees are intended to cover off-site costs such as sewer plant upgrades and the like. Solid Waste – The County land fill is operated by Flathead County and supported by property taxes. Solid waste pick-up is provided by the City or Evergreen Disposal for a fee to cover the cost of operation and dumping charges. Schools – Schools are supported by property taxes. School districts run their own budgets with money provided by the state from the collected property taxes. The Kalispell School District does their own planning and population projections to determine when they need to expand or build a new school. Schools often go to the public to vote on bond requests for expanding/remodeling schools, building new schools, or supporting specific programs. C. Describe how the subdivision allows existing services, through expanded use, to operate more efficiently, or make the installation or improvement of services feasible, eg allow installation of a central water system or improvement of a rural road. Currently City sewer and water mains are located in Tronstad Road approximately 500 feet from the subdivision. These mains, if the project is approved, will be extended throughout the subdivision. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 14 The subject property has a 1000 gpm well on site. The developers’ water rights will be transferred to the City pursuant to regulatory authority. The water right will provide water for this project and provide additional volume and capacity to the City.  Tronstad Road will be upgraded to the City’s Urban Standard for the subdivision frontage and extending west to include the frontage of th Koenig Subdivision. The Tronstad improvements will include a sidewalk on the north side. With this application set, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared. The TIS concludes that warrants will be met with this development and may already be met for a traffic signal at Tronstad and 93. The developer will install the traffic mitigations needed to address the drop in Level of Service at the intersection and remove the “porkchop” that currently restrict left hand turn movements for west bound traffic. The developer has worked with the MDOT of the new intersection design and will construct the east/west turn lanes and install all of the electronics for the traffic signal. The developer will provide the MDOT a bond or other financial guarantee to cover the actual cost of the signal so that it can be installed by the MDOT as soon as the MDOT determines it is appropriate. D. What are the present tax revenues received from the unsubdivided land. The 2023 taxes for the 110 acres are $584.98. E. Provide the approximate revenues received by each of the taxing authorities if the lots were reclassified, and when the lots are all improved and built upon. Using a typical house in Silverbrook house for SFR detached home, the taxes are broken out as follows: Table 1 Taxes by Jurisdiction Taxes for a Typical Silverbrook House for 2023 (not including special assessments) County $619 Education $2398 City $975 F. Would new taxes generated from the subdivision cover additional public costs Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 15 Between impact fees of $2,101,955 for 355 units and property taxes of $1,417,160 per year (Based on the previous Table 1 of the typical Silverbrook home times 355 lots), not including special assessments, the subdivision should cover its costs for government services. G. How many SID would be created which would obligate the local government fiscally or administratively. As a part of this project, the developer is attempting to provide the most viable attainable housing product possible for the Flathead Valley’s middle income household earners. One financial tool available to local governments is Special Improvement Districts. Special improvement districts could be used to support a number of off-site costs associated with the project – e.g., upgrades to the Highway 93 and Tronstad Road intersection, potential traffic light, pedestrian pathway from western boundary of the proposed development to Highway 93, additional activities associated with the 1,000 gpm well to maximize utilization, etc. If the city were willing to consider a conversation around a special improvement district, developer would investigate providing a bond to hold the city government fiscally harmless. 4. Effects on Historic or Natural Environment A. Describe and locate on a plat overlay any known or possible historic, paleontological, archaeological or cultural sites, structures or objects. There are no known historic sites on the property. B. How would the subdivision affect surface and groundwater, soils, slopes, vegetation, historical or archaeological features within the subdivision or on adjacent land. There are no surface waters on the property and the closest, the Stillwater River is 0.8 miles to the west. Groundwater is10 to 22 ft. below the ground surface and the subdivision is utilizing City sewer and water facilities which are all intended to protect and limit contamination of groundwater. Additionally, stormwater will be collected and conveyed to a hydrodynamic separator for treatment prior to discharge storm detention sites on the property. No discharge is anticipated to go to the River. There are no known historic features on the site. There are no expansive soils or steep slopes to design around or mitigate. There is no native vegetation on the site. C. How would the subdivision affect visual features within the subdivision or on adjacent land? Describe anticipated efforts to visually blend the proposed development with the existing environment. The proposed subdivision is a single family detached development. These proposed homes will be single or two story dwellings well below the maximum height allowance. At the suggestion of some of the neighbors, Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 16 the developer has proposed a 30 to 40-foot wide green belt on the west side of the development that will protect the existing tree buffer and put some space between the proposed subdivision and the neighbors. 5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat A. Describe what impacts the subdivision or associated improvements would have on wildlife area such as big game winter range, migration routes, nesting area, wetlands or important habitat for rare or endangered species. The property has been in productive agriculture for decades and is void of trees or shrubs , except for the narrow tree belt on the west and north side of the subdivision which provides very limited nesting habitat. Each year the crops are cut and the property is prepared for the new season’s crops. There is no permanent habitat for wildlife. As such the property is primarily used by bird species that feed on spilled seed/grain after harvest. There is little or no nesting on the site as it is continually disturbed with the cycle of prep, planting, and harvesting. Species that use the site are primarily geese and ducks. Birds of prey will hunt rodents. Deer may cross the fields and graze but there is no cover for them to hide. The proposed subdivision will remove these croplands from production and replace them with housing, yards, streets, and parks as part of the urban expansion of the City of Kalispell. B. Describe the effects that pets or human activity would have on wildlife. The proposed subdivision will be in the City limits of Kalispell and as such pets will be subject to the City lease laws. Dogs should not be allowed to run unaccompanied by owners. Cats may hunt neighboring fields, but they will primarily be hunting mice and voles. Ducks and geese are generally unaffected by development as one will notice at Village Green Golf Course or the fields surrounding Applied Materials. 6. Effects on Public Health and Safety A. Describe any health and safety hazards on or near the subdivision, such as natural hazards, lack of water, drainage problems, heavy traffic, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, high voltage power lines. The property is flat and the development will connect to the City of Kalispell Public water and wastewater facilities. A preliminary drainage plan is included with this application and this design shows all stormwater can be retained and managed on the property. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project. The TIS recommends a traffic signal be placed at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. Tables 4-7 compare the Level of Service (LOS) at the Tronstad/93 intersection with the existing configuration and the development proposed signalized intersection in Table 8. Peak AM and PM LOS goes from a C/B and C/C in 2026 to B and A with the signal and development which is a significant improvement at the intersection. The City Transportation Plan also identifies major Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 17 reconstruction of Reserve Drive between Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage converting the two lanes with continuous left to a four lane with continuous left. Lastly the MDOT is in the process of designing a widening project for Whitefish Stage. There are no high-pressure gas or high voltage power lines on the property. B. Describe how the subdivision would be subject to hazardous conditions due to high voltage lines, airports, highways, railroads, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, irrigation ditches and adjacent industrial or mining uses. The proposed development does not have nor is it adjacent to any of these listed uses. The property is 2.6 miles from the end of the runway of the Glacier International Airport and we could expect some language on the plat that alerts future home buyers to the proximity of the runway from a noise standpoint, but it should not pose a safety hazard. C. Describe land uses adjacent to the subdivision and how the subdivision will affect the adjacent uses. The subject land is currently, and has been for many years, in agricultural production. Lands to the north and east are also in agricultural production. Lands to the west are developed with a mix of one acre County lots (Koenig Subdivision), 6,000 square foot City lots (Quail Meadows), County Commercial uses along the Highway, and some suburban agricultural uses to the northeast. To the south is a mix of suburban agricultural uses, mini storage, and one acre lots of Ponderosa Pines. The proposed subdivision will not use any of the adjacent subdivision roads for access. Residential adjacent to residential and suburban agricultural pose little conflict or impact other than nobody likes change or the loss of open agricultural lands. D. Describe public health or safety hazards, such as dangerous traffic, fire conditions or contamination of water supplies that would be created by the subdivision. The TIS shows that the proposed subdivision will actually improve the level of service at the intersection of Tronstad and 93 when the traffic signal is installed. With the installation of a pedestrian path along the development frontage and improving Tronstad to Quail Meadow, the pedestrian access will be improved. The subdivision will be developed to urban standards with fire flows to fire hydrants and city streets meeting City standards. As the site is not forested, there is not a significant threat from wildfire. With the use of Kalispell public sewer, water, and stormwater facilities, the project should not pose and risk of contamination to water supplies. Part III – Community Impact Report According to the US Census Bureau – Quick Facts, there are 2.44 persons per household in Kalispell. With potential of 355 units in the project there would be approximately 866 persons living in this subdivision at full buildout. As the City Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 18 has witnessed from other projects in the Flathead, it can take many years to reach buildout. 1. Education and Busing A. Describe the available educational facilities that would serve this subdivision. The proposed development is in the Kalispell School District for Elementary and High School. According to the Flathead County Superintendent of Schools Statistical Report of Schools 2023, the 10-year average enrollment for the elementary school rose 1%. The Kalispell High School District rose 11% over the ten-year period. School Aged children from this development would attend Edgerton Elementary, Kalispell Middle School, and Glacier High School. B. Estimate the number of school aged children that will be added to the school system by the proposed subdivision. Using County wide average of 0.34 school aged children per residence, (There were 17,446 students recorded with the Flathead County Superintendent of Schools Office including public, private and home- schooled children at the beginning of the 2022 school year. The US Census Bureau 2021 counted 50,808 housing units in Flathead County – 17,446 students / 50,808 housing units = 0.343 students per unit), the 355 residential units would generate approximately 120 students to the K – 12 school system at full buildout. 2. Roads and Maintenance A. Estimate how much daily traffic the subdivision, when fully occupied, will generate on existing roads and streets. The 355 units in the development will generate approximately 3,348 vehicle trips (Traffic Impact Study, Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, July, 2024). B. Describe the capability of existing and proposed roads to safely accommodate this increased traffic. See Appendix B for the TIS C. Describe increased maintenance problems and increased cost due to this increase in volume. U.S. Highway 93 is an MDT owned and maintained highway. Tronstad Road is currently a county road but will be annexed to the City with the mentioned upgrades. The streets proposed in Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing will be maintained by the City of Kalispell. It is anticipated that any new development will generate vehicle trips on adjacent roads as well as add new roads to the City’s inventory which will Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 19 impact maintenance needs and requirements. However, the increased tax revenues should off-set any increase in maintenance costs. There is no anticipation of out of the ordinary maintenance problems or costs associated with this proposed development. D. Describe proposed new public or private access roads. The new City streets within the subdivision will be designed and built to City standards. They will be paved and include curb and gutter directing street run-off to stormwater collection and conveyance facilities. These new streets will be dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. The proposed subdivision will not use adjacent subdivision roads for access. E. Describe the closing or modifications of any existing roads. Tronstad Road will be closed for a short period of time to allow for upgrading of the road and extension of utilities. Installation of a signalized intersection at Highway 93 and Tronstad may cause some temporary delays as seen when the Rose Crossing signal was installed. F. Explain why road access was not provided within the subdivision, if access to any individual lot is directly from arterial roads. N/A – All lots within the subdivision are designed to have access to local streets within the subdivision. G. Is year-round access by conventional automobile over legal rights-of way available to the subdivision and to all lots and common facilities of the subdivision. The subdivision is designed to Kalispell Urban Design Standards with proposed City Streets providing access to all lots and parks. All City streets are open to the public. The streets within the subdivision will connect in two locations with Tronstad Road (County/City) Road. H. Estimate the cost and completion date of the system, and indicate who will pay the cost of installation, maintenance and snow removal. Improvements will be phased in according to the Phasing Plan which accompanies this application set. The developer will install and pay for all road infrastructure within the subdivision, improvements to Tronstad Road, and signal at Tronstad and 93. The developer is working with other developers in the area to help with the cost of the Tronstad/93 intersection improvements as they all benefit from the intersection improvement. All streets will be dedicated to the City for public access. The City will maintain the streets within the subdivision. 3. Water, Sewage, and Solid Waste (Completed by Brad Bennett, PE; WET Engineering) Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 20 A. Briefly describe the water supply and sewage treatment system to be used in serving the proposed subdivision. Existing City of Kalispell public water mains will be extended to serve the proposed lots in Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing. Connection will be made to an existing 12” stub in Tronstad Rd and connection will also be made to an existing 8” water main midway along the western boundary line between Browtine St and Oussel Dr. This will create a looped water distribution system providing improved hydraulic efficiency and the two points of connection will provide for better system maintenance. B. Provide information on estimated costs of the system, who will bear the costs, and how the system will be financed. The construction of both the water and sewer systems will be financed by the owners/developers of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Subdivisions. The costs of constructing the water system improvements are yet to be determined. C. Where hook-up to an existing system is proposed, describe estimated impacts on the existing system, and show evidence that permission has been granted to hook up to the existing system. As previously mentioned, water supply and sewer service to Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing will be provided by connections to and extensions of existing City of Kalispell public water and sewer systems. In reviewing the capacity of the Silverbrook Lift Station, which has a capacity of 1200 gpm, it appears to have 402gpm available capacity. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing peak flow is approximately 380 gpm. D. All water supply and sewage treatment plan and specification will be reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Quality and should be submitted using the appropriate DEQ application form. Prior to construction, all water and sewer plans will be submitted to DEQ and the City for review and approval. This is an understood fact of subdivision review. E. Describe the proposed method of collecting and disposing of solid waste from the development. Each resident of the subdivision will have the option of using the City of Kalispell solid waste collection services or contract with Evergreen Disposal for solid waste collection. Collected waste will be transferred to the Flathead County Landfill which is located approximately six miles north of the proposed subdivision. F. If use of an existing collection system or disposal facility is proposed indicate the name and location of the facility. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 21 See item E previous. 4. Fire and Police Protection A. Describe the fire and police protection services available to the residents of the proposed subdivision including numbers of personnel and number of vehicles or type of facilities. The proposed subdivision is currently in the West Valley Fire District. In the Annexation application is the petition to annex into the Kalispell Fire District and withdraw from the West Valley District. According to the City’s website, the Fire Department runs three platoons with a total of 29 personnel. The Fire Department has two stations the closest is Station 62 located at 255 Old Reserve Drive. Station 61 is located in the old City Hall at 312 1st Avenue East. The Police Department is also located in the old City Hall. The police department has three divisions: Patrol – 1 Captain, 7 sergeants, 17 patrol officers and 1 Admin. Detective – 1 Captain, 1 Sergeant, 3 detectives, 4 resource officers, 1 drug task force officer, and 1 technician. Administration – 8 persons. B. Can the fire and police protection service needs of the proposed subdivision be met by present personnel and facilities. Cumulative impacts of all the development within the City will require additional personnel at some point in the near future as well as additional equipment. The City of Kalispell collects impact fees so that new development compensates the City for the impacts of the new development. 5. Parks and Recreation Facilities A. Describe park and recreation facilities to be provided within the proposed subdivision and other recreational facilities that will serve the subdivision. The project is proposing 11+ acres of park with recreation amenities. Based on the Kalispell subdivision regulations, 0.03 acres of park is required for each residential lot. The 355 lots in the subdivision is required to dedicate 10.65 acres of parkland or a combination of lands and amenities that equal the value of the required land dedication. The proposed park area and amenities exceed the minimum required park dedication. B. List other parks and recreation facilities or sites in the area and their approximate Distance from the City. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 22 There are a number of homeowners’ parks within Silverbrook which really are not open to the public although some members of the public may use them. The closest public park is the Kalispell Youth Athletic complex located approximately 2.5 mile south the subdivision. . C. If cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed, state the purchase price per acre or current market values. The cash value of the land will be determined at the time of final plat. However, based on other appraisals for nearby subdivisions, the current value of undeveloped lands is approximately $100,000/acre. 6. Payment for Extension of Capital Facilities A. Indicate how the subdivider will pay for the cost of extending capital facilities resulting from expected impacts directly attributable to the subdivision. As is typical, the developer will utilize a combination of private investors and bank financing to install the necessary facilities as well as amenities for this subdivision. As a part of this project, the developer is attempting to provide the most viable attainable housing product possible for the Flathead Valley’s middle income household earners. One financial tool available to local governments is Special Improvement Districts. Special improvement districts could be used to support a number of off-site costs associated with the project – e.g., upgrades to the Highway 93 and Tronstad Road intersection, potential traffic light, pedestrian pathway from western boundary of the proposed development to Highway 93, additional activities associated with the 1,000 gpm well to maximize utilization, etc. If the city were willing to consider a conversation around a special improvement district, developer would investigate providing a bond to hold the city government fiscally harmless. Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing – Environmental Assessment 24 EA APPENDICIES A. Preliminary Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Plans – WET B. Traffic Impact Study – Abelin Traffic Services C. Geotechnical Report D. Draft CC&R’s – MAPS/PLANS Preliminary Plat Water, Sewer, & Stormwater Maps Appendix A Water, Sewer, & Stormwater Data W WOSWOSWOSW DYH S DYH OSW TBM S S Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 140139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 141 142 143144145146147148149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park B1.68 Ac. Park C3.21 Ac. Park D1.57 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park F0.76 Ac. Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park H1.43 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 89 90 91 92 93 94 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 180 181 182 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 172 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 173 INDEX TO DRAWINGS T1.0 TITLE SHEET DRAWING INDEX C3.0 OVERALL LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C3.1 ENLARGED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C3.2 ENLARGED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C3.3 ENLARGED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C3.4 ENLARGED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C3.5 ENLARGED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C3.6 ENLARGED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT C4.0 OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C4.1 ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C4.2 ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C4.3 ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C4.4 ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C4.5 ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C4.6 ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C6.0 MASTER UTILITY PLAN C6.1 ENLARGED UTILITY PLAN C6.2 ENLARGED UTILITY PLAN C6.3 ENLARGED UTILITY PLAN C6.4 ENLARGED UTILITY PLAN C6.5 ENLARGED UTILITY PLAN C6.6 ENLARGED UTILITY PLAN CD1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CD2 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CD3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS For: Elcan and Associates, Inc. Owners: CAE Properties II, LLC Engineer: Terry Moran Engineering P.O. BOX 4075, BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733, FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E. VICINITY MAP 1.PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA 2.PROPERTY INFORMATION BASED ON ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PROVIDED BY SANDS SURVEYING, INC. DATED MAY 26, 2023 3.ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE PER ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PROVIDED BY SANDS SURVEYING, INC. DATED MAY 26, 2023 4.ALL EXISTING CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PER ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PROVIDED BY SAND SURVEYING, INC. DATED MAY 26, 2023 TOTAL LOTS = 355 Tronstad Meadows: Whitetail Crossing: Total West: 173 Lots Total East:182 lots W WOSWOSWOSW DYH S DYH OSW TBM S S Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 140139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 141 142 143144145146147148 149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park B1.68 Ac. Park C3.21 Ac. Park D1.57 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park F0.76 Ac. Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park H1.43 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 89 90 91 92 93 94 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 180 181 182 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 172 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 173 TBM 3032 3031 3030 3029 3028 30273026 TBM Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. Park C3.21 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park F0.76 Ac. Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park H1.43 Ac. 150 75 1500 600300 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S WOSWOSWOSW Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 Park B1.68 Ac. Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 167 168 169 170 171 Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 172 173 3032 3031 3030 3029 3028 3027 3026 Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 150 75 1500 600300 W E S N 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 118 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 133 132Park D1.57 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac.Browtine Street (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 Ousel Trail (60' City Street) 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 105 106 107 108 RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S DYH S DYH OSW S S 115 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 20' Ped X i n g B 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 145146147148 149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park E1.53 Ac. Fallow Loop (60' City Street) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 Park E1.53 Ac. 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S Park F0.76 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 Park F0.76 Ac. 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S W Park C Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac.89 90 91 92 93 94 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S TBM 140 141 142 143144145 Park C3.21 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac.Park H1.43 Ac. 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 176 177 178 179 Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street)180 181 182 Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Tel. Ped Tel. PedSign Tel. Ped Tel. Ped Elect. Pull Box GravelApproachGravelApproachesPavedApproachGravelApproachCarsonitePost - GasMarker Located Fiber-opticline falls outside R/Wfrom this point and TBMTBM Park C3.21 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac.Park H1.43 Ac. 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S TBM CITOP=3037.66S.INV=INV.= CITOP=3037.66'N. INV =W. INV =INV. = CITOP=3033.10E.INV=INV= CITOP=3032.50N.INV=W.INV=E.INV=INV= CITOP=3028.00NW. INV=NE.INV=INV.= FES = 3024.23 CITOP=3033.10N.INV=W.INV=E.INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3035.63N. INV = W. INV =INV.= CITOP=3035.60S. INV=INV= CITOP=3033.75E. INV=W. INV=INV= CITOP=3030.72INV= CITOP=3027.94INV= CITOP=3027.80INV= CITOP=3028.00INV= CITOP=3026.80INV= CITOP=3027.26INV= CITOP=3026.23INV= CITOP=3026.20INV= CITOP=3027.80INV= CITOP=3026.23INV= CITOP=3027.80INV= CITOP=3031.03INV= CITOP=3028.05INV= CITOP=3026.20INV= CITOP=3025.80INV= CITOP=3031.03INV= 296 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% 28 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% 240 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.89% 28 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.25% 28 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30%34 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 245 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.35% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 204 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.40% 40 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.50% 219 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% 160 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.55% 121 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.60% 120 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.70% 256 L.F. OF 18"@ XXX% 33 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.30% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3038.36S.INV=INV= 200 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.60% CITOP=3032.50W.INV=S.INV=N.INV=INV.= CITOP=3028.89 NW. INV=NE. INV =SE. INV =INV.= 28 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% CITOP=3030.71N. INV=E. INV =W. INV = CITOP=3027.80INV= 32 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3027.94N. INV=E. INV =W. INV = 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 37 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3029.60INV= CITOP=3029.60 E. INV=W. INV = 248 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.40% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3026.80INV= 138 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.25% CITOP=3026.10INV= 121 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.25% CITOP=3026.10INV= 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3027.60INV= CITOP=3027.60INV= 32 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3028.05INV= 32 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CITOP=3025.80INV= 28 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CITOP=3042.99N. INV = 3039.03S.INV=3035.42E.INV=3035.50INV = 3033.42 40 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% 152 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.60% 40 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.35% 40 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.25% 220 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.65% CITOP=3028.62N. INV=SE.INV=E.INV=INV= 257 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.30% CITOP=3038.36'N. INV=W. INV=E.INV=S.INV=INV.= CITOP=3033.33' N. INV=S.INV=INV.= 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3034.21S.INV=INV= CITOP= 3034.12N.INV=W.INV=INV= 33 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30%38 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.50% CITOP=3031.75E. INV=W. INV=INV= 38 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.30% CITOP=3032.45E. INV=INV= 16 L.F. OF 24" @ 1.0% 3032 3031 3030 3029 3028 3027 3026 CITOP=3043.73S. INV = INV = 28 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.35% CITOP=3042.41S. INV =INV = CITOP=3042.41N. INV =W.INV=E.INV=INV = 350 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.50% CITOP=3039.65N. INV = 3031.04NE.INV=3031.00S.INV=3034.39E.INV=3031.80INV = 3029.00 CITOP=3040.50 S. INV =W.INV=INV = CITOP=3040.59 N. INV =E.INV=INV = 28 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30%40 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% 350 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.60%40 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% FES = 3030.54 CITOP=3039.24 N. INV = 3037.50INV = 3035.50 CITOP=3040.01S. INV =INV = CITOP=3039.96 N. INV =W.INV=INV = CITOP=3036.11S. INV =E.INV=INV = CITOP=3035.51N. INV =W.INV=INV = CITOP=3033.48N. INV =S.INV= INV = 350 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 350 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% CITOP=3036.94S.INV=INV= CITOP=3036.54N. INV=S.INV=INV= 40 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 220 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.50% CITOP=3034.23 N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3033.82N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3032.31N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3032.21N. INV=S.INV=INV= 28 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% CITOP=3032.35N.INV=S. INV =INV = CITOP=3031.94N. INV =S.INV=INV = CITOP=3029.33N. INV =S.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.71N. INV = S. INV=INV = 40 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% 220 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.45% 40 L.F. OF 18"@ 0.35% 220 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.65% 257 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.30% 221 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.40% 282 L.F. OF 24"@ 0.50% 37 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% CITOP=3036.11W.INV=INV = CITOP=3033.08W.INV=INV = CITOP=3033.08S. INV =E.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.77N. INV =S.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.22N. INV =S. INV=INV = CITOP=3027.98N. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.23NE. INV =SW.INV=5INV = CITOP=3028.42N. INV =S. INV=INV = CITOP=3027.98N. INV = S. INV=INV = RL CITOP=3029.89N. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.75N. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.75N. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.15W. INV =E.INV=INV = RL CITOP=3028.15W. INV =E.INV=INV = 272 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.25% CITOP=3030.50NW. INV=SE. INV =INV.= CITOP=3027.50INV= 32 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3032.05N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3032.05S.INV=INV= CITOP=3029.63INV= CITOP=3029.80INV= CITOP=3033.93N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3032.33N.INV=S. INV =INV = CITOP=3027.01N. INV =S. INV= INV = CITOP=3029.33N.INV=S. INV=INV= CITOP=3028.71N. INV = S. INV=INV = 40L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% CITOP=3028.69INV= CITOP=3028.69INV= CITOP=3026.10INV= CITOP=3026.10INV= 32L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30%32L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% 180 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.30% 28 L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% CITOP=3029.89N. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.04N. INV = S. INV=INV = CITOP=3028.42N. INV =S. INV=INV = CITOP=3028.04N. INV = S. INV=INV = CITOP=3027.01N. INV = S. INV=INV =CITOP=3028.23NE. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3028.43NE. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3029.00 N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3028.62N. INV=S.INV=INV= 32L.F. OF 15"@ 0.30% CITOP=3028.00INV= CITOP=3026.00INV= CITOP=3026.00INV= CITOP=3028.92INV= CITOP=3028.92INV= CITOP=3028.97N. INV =S.INV=INV = CITOP=3029.25NE. INV =SW.INV=INV = CITOP=3029.60INV= CITOP=3040.01S. INV =INV = TBM Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. Park C3.21 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park F0.76 Ac. Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park H1.43 Ac. 150 75 1500 600300 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S WOSWOSWOSW Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 Park B1.68 Ac. Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 167 168 169 170 171 Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 172 173 CITOP=3037.66S.INV=INV.= CITOP=3037.66' N. INV = W. INV = INV. = CITOP=3033.10E.INV=INV= CI TOP=3032.50 N.INV= W.INV= E.INV= INV= CI TOP=3028.00 NW. INV=NE.INV=INV.= FES = 3024.23 CI TOP=3033.10 N.INV= W.INV= E.INV= S.INV=INV= CITOP=3035.63 N. INV = W. INV =INV.= CI TOP=3035.60 S. INV= INV= CI TOP=3033.75 E. INV= W. INV= INV= CITOP=3030.72INV= CI CI TOP=3027.80 INV= 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 34 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 245 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.35% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 204 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.40% 40 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.50% 219 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% 160 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.55% 121 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.60% 120 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.70% 256 L.F. OF 18" @ XXX% 33 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3038.36S.INV=INV= 200 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.60% CI TOP=3032.50 W.INV=S.INV=N.INV=INV.= CITOP=3028.89 NW. INV= NE. INV = SE. INV =INV.= 28 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3030.71 N. INV= E. INV = W. INV = CI TOP=3027.80 INV= 32 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3038.36' N. INV= W. INV= E.INV= S.INV= INV.= CITOP=3033.33' N. INV= S.INV= INV.= 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3034.21 S.INV= INV= CI TOP= 3034.12N.INV=W.INV=INV= 33 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 38 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.50% CI TOP=3031.75 E. INV= W. INV= INV= 38 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3032.45 E. INV= INV= 16 L.F. OF 24" @ 1.0% 3032 3031 3030 3029 3028 3027 3026 CITOP=3039.65 N. INV = 3031.04 NE.INV=3031.00 S.INV=3034.39 E.INV=3031.80 INV = 3029.00 40 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3030.50 NW. INV= SE. INV =INV.= CITOP=3027.50INV= 32 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3032.05 N. INV=S.INV=INV= CITOP=3032.05S.INV=INV= CI TOP=3033.93 N. INV= S.INV= INV= 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 118 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 133 132Park D1.57 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac.Browtine Street (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 Ousel Trail (60' City Street) 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 105 106 107 108 CI TOP=3027.94 INV= CI TOP=3028.00 INV= CI TOP=3026.80 INV= CI TOP=3027.26INV= CI TOP=3026.23 INV= CITOP=3026.20INV= CITOP=3027.80INV= CITOP=3026.23INV= CI TOP=3027.80 INV= CITOP=3026.20INV= CITOP=3025.80INV= 28 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% 240 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.89% 28 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CITOP=3027.94 N. INV= E. INV = W. INV = 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 37 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3029.60INV= CI TOP=3029.60 E. INV= W. INV = 248 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.40% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3026.80INV= 138 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CI TOP=3026.10 INV= 121 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CITOP=3026.10INV= 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3025.80INV= 28 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% 272 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.25% 40L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3028.69 INV= CITOP=3026.10INV= CITOP=3026.10INV= 32L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 32L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 180 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.30% 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3029.00 N. INV=S.INV=INV= CI TOP=3028.62 N. INV= S.INV= INV= 32L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3028.00INV= CI TOP=3026.00INV= CI TOP=3026.00 INV= CI TOP=3028.92 INV= CI TOP=3028.92 INV= 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S DYH S DYH OSW S S 115 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 145146147148 149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park E1.53 Ac. Fallow Loop (60' City Street) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 CITOP=3031.03INV= CITOP=3028.05INV= CI TOP=3031.03 INV= 296 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CITOP=3027.60INV= CI TOP=3027.60 INV= 32 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.25% CITOP=3028.05INV= 32 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.25% CITOP=3028.15 W. INV =E.INV= INV = RL CI TOP=3028.15 W. INV =E.INV= INV = CI TOP=3029.63 INV= CI TOP=3029.80 INV= CI TOP=3028.69 INV= CITOP=3028.69INV= CITOP=3029.60INV= 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S Park F0.76 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 1402 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN CITOP=3042.99 N. INV = 3039.03S.INV=3035.42 E.INV=3035.50 INV = 3033.42 40 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 152 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.60% 40 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.35% 220 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.65% CITOP=3043.73 S. INV = INV = 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.35% CI TOP=3042.41 S. INV = INV = CI TOP=3042.41 N. INV =W.INV=E.INV= INV = 350 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.50% CI TOP=3040.50 S. INV = W.INV= INV = CI TOP=3040.59 N. INV = E.INV= INV = 28 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 40 L.F. OF 15" 350 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.60% 40 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% FES = 3030.54 CITOP=3039.24 N. INV = 3037.50 INV = 3035.50 CI TOP=3040.01 S. INV = INV = CI TOP=3039.96 N. INV = W.INV= INV = CI TOP=3036.11 S. INV =E.INV= INV = CI TOP=3035.51 N. INV = W.INV= INV = CI TOP=3033.48 N. INV = S.INV= INV = 350 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 350 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CI TOP=3036.94 S.INV= INV= CITOP=3036.54 N. INV=S.INV=INV= 40 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 220 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.50% CITOP=3034.23 N. INV=S.INV=INV= CI TOP=3033.82 N. INV= S.INV= INV= CI CITOP=3032.35N.INV= S. INV = INV = CITOP=3031.94 N. INV =S.INV= INV = 40 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% 220 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.45% 40 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.35% 220 L.F. OF 18" @ 0.65% 37 L.F. OF 15" @ 0.30% CITOP=3036.11W.INV= INV = CI TOP=3033.08 W.INV= INV = CITOP=3033.08 S. INV =E.INV= INV = CITOP=3032.33N.INV= S. INV = INV = CI TOP=3040.01 S. INV = INV = 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S W Park C Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac.89 90 91 92 93 94 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 40 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.25% CITOP=3028.62 N. INV=SE.INV=E.INV=INV= 257 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% CITOP=3032.31 N. INV= S.INV= INV= CI TOP=3032.21 N. INV= S.INV=INV= CI TOP=3029.33 N. INV = S.INV= INV = CITOP=3028.71 N. INV = S. INV= INV = 257 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.30% 221 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.40% 282 L.F. OF 24" @ 0.50% CI TOP=3028.23 NE. INV = SW.INV=5 INV = CITOP=3027.01 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CI TOP=3029.33 N.INV= S. INV=INV= CITOP=3028.71 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CI TOP=3027.01 N. INV = S. INV= INV =CITOP=3028.23 NE. INV = SW.INV= INV = CITOP=3028.43 NE. INV =SW.INV= INV = CITOP=3029.25 NE. INV =SW.INV= INV = TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TBM 140 141 142 143144145 Park C3.21 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac.Park H1.43 Ac. 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 176 177 178 179 Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street)180 181 182 Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 TBM CI TOP=3028.77 N. INV = S.INV= INV = CITOP=3028.22 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CITOP=3027.98 N. INV =SW.INV= INV = CI TOP=3028.42 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CI TOP=3027.98 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CITOP=3029.89 N. INV =SW.INV= INV = CITOP=3028.75 N. INV =SW.INV= INV = CI TOP=3028.75 N. INV = SW.INV= INV = CITOP=3029.89 N. INV =SW.INV= INV = CI TOP=3028.04 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CI TOP=3028.42 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CI TOP=3028.04 N. INV = S. INV= INV = CI TOP=3028.97 N. INV = S.INV= INV = TBM 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S W WOSWOSWOSW DYH S DYH OSW TBM S S Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 141 142 143144145146147148 149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park B1.68 Ac. Park C3.21 Ac. Park D1.57 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park F0.76 Ac. Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park H1.43 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 89 90 91 92 93 94 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 180 181 182 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 172 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 173 TBM VALVE VAULTS 8"X8"X8" TEE45° FITTING993 L.F. OF 8" FORCE MAIN CONTRACTOR TO COREMANHOLE @ 3021.92 8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES CONTRACTOR TO EXTEND 12" WATER MAIN 2000 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 2000 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES 8"X8"X8" TEEW/ VALVES 8"X8"X8" TEEW/ VALVES 11.75° FITTING 22.50° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 12"X8" HOT TAP W/TAPPING SLEEVE @ TIEIN - LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED 1402 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1402 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 22.5° FITTING 545 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1632 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN94 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 80 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 75 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 83 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 736 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 736 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 91 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 30 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 1108 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1668 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1668 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 106 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 40 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 430 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 58 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 22.5° FITTING 52 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN55 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 8" C900WATER MAINLENGTH TO BEDETERMINED FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 1315 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1668 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN FIRE HYDRANTFIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 1632 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1315 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 55 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN 54 L.F. OF 8" C900WATER MAIN WETWELLTOP=3029.93'INV.=3014.08' RECEIVING SMHTOP=3029.40'INV.=3014.25' SMHTOP=3043.20'INV.=3032.59' SMHTOP=3039.47'INV.=3034.80' SMHTOP=3039.41'W INV. = 3026.80'SMHTOP=3033.62'INV.=3028.95' SMH#3TOP=3036.47'INV.=3027.83' SMHTOP=3036.70'INV.=3025.71' SMHTOP=3034.20'INV.=3024.37' SMHTOP=3034.04'INV.=3023.34'SMHTOP=3030.47'INV.=3025.75' SMHTOP=3027.09'INV.=3023.09' SMHTOP=3029.77'INV.=3022.31'SMHTOP=3031.10'INV.=3023.64' SMHTOP=3026.32'INV.=3021.29' SMHTOP=3028.45'INV.=3022.62'' SMHTOP=3028.72'INV.=3023.69' SMHTOP=3026.28'INV.=3021.38' SMHTOP=3031.75'INV.=3018.58' SMHTOP=3028.72'INV.=3019.64' SMHTOP=3028.16'INV.=3019.86' SMHTOP=3026.35'INV.=3020.87' SMHTOP=3031.94'INV.=3025.74' SMHTOP=3033.76'INV.=3026.02' SMHTOP=3030.68'INV.=3019.12' SMHTOP=3029.61'INV.=3019.56' SMHTOP=3028.00'INV.=3024.75' SMHTOP=3028.35'INV.=3024.95' SMHTOP=3029.41'INV.=3025.40' SMHTOP=3031.35'INV.=3025.91' SMHTOP=3026.65'INV.=3024.13' SMHTOP=3027.50'INV.=3022.69' SMHTOP=3026.05'INV.=3022.05' SMHTOP=3026.18'INV.=3021.82' SMHTOP=3027.78'INV.=3020.40' SMHTOP=3028.03'INV.=3018.98' SMHTOP=3028.00'INV.=3018.58' SMHTOP=3028.00'INV.=3018.28' SMHTOP=3028.85'INV.=3017.52' 551 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 280 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 257 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 294 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 334 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 233 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 334 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 250 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 244 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 213 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 110 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 133 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 266 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 191 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 75 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 99 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 355 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 354 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 60 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 156 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 333 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 229 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% SMHTOP=3042.83'INV.=3033.90' 50 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 112 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 130 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 2.16% 56 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 253 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 55 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 212 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% SMHTOP=3028.95'INV.=3014.32' SMHTOP=3027.42'INV.=3022.28' 193 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3027.81'INV.=3022.21' SMHTOP=3027.09'INV.=3021.07' 50 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 333 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 55 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% SMHTOP=3029.33'INV.=3019.42' 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 257 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 278 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% SMHTOP=3031.03'INV.=3023.23' 252 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40%230 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% SMHTOP=3028.81'INV.=3024.07' 252LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40%SMHTOP=3031.32'INV.=3024.27' 98 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% SMHTOP=3041.35'INV.=3034.68' SMHTOP=3041.81'INV.=3028.12' SMHTOP=xxxxx'INV.=3033.68' SMHTOP=3038.01'INV.=3025.43' SMHTOP=3036.68'INV.=3030.01' SMHTOP=3035.21'INV.=3022.86' SMHTOP=3034.28'INV.=3027.61' SMHTOP=3031.17'INV.=3024.50' SMHTOP=3031.96'INV.=3021.19' SMHTOP=3029.14'INV.=3020.16'SMHTOP=3028.37'INV.=3021.70' SMHTOP=3030.0'INV.=3017.93' SMHTOP=3031.16'INV.=3022.86' SMHTOP=3031.59'INV.=3016.17' SMHTOP=3031.09'INV.=3016.38' SMHTOP=3030.12'INV.=3016.80' SMHTOP=3028.89'INV.=3017.37' SMHTOP=3027.75'INV.=3018.41' SMHTOP=3028.22'INV.=3018.61' SMHTOP=3028.88'INV.=3018.85' SMHTOP=3031.46'INV.=3019.88' SMH TOP= 3034.02'INV.=3021.54' SMHTOP= 3036.70'INV.= 3024.12' SMHTOP=3033.52'INV.=3026.85' SMHTOP=3035.66'INV.=3028.99' SMHTOP=3040.13'INV.=3033.46' SMHTOP=3032.10'INV.=3025.33' SMHTOP=3029.48'INV.=3022.81' SMHTOP=3027.28'INV.=3020.48' SMHTOP=3027.47'INV.=3019.26' SMHTOP=3028.15'INV.=3018.24' SMHTOP=3027.98' INV. IN=3017.00' SMHTOP=3029.50'INV.=3017.60' SMHTOP=3030.11'INV.=3015.16' SMHTOP=3029.85'INV.=3016.56' SMHTOP=3029.24'INV.=3017.33' 459 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 264 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 1.75% 264 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.46% 264 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.64% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 218 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 191 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 47 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 208 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 150 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 311 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 256 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 306 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.91% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.97% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.58% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.80% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 1.67% 142 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 254 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 1.75% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 1.18% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.85% SMHTOP=3027.71'INV.=3020.41' 53 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 105 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 168.9 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 261 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 50 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 60 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.64% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 1.00% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.00% 145 LF OF 8" SEWER@ 0.40% TBM 150 75 1500 600300 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1 WOSWOSWOSW Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 Park B1.68 Ac. Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 167 168 169 170 171 Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 172 173 8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES 8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES 8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES 11.75° FITTING 22.50° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 1402 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 22.5° FITTING 545 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 94 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 80 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 75 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 83 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 736 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1108 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 22.5° FITTING FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 1632 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1315 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 3032 3031 3030 3029 3028 3027 3026 SMHTOP=3039.47'INV.=3034.80' SMHTOP=3033.62'INV.=3028.95' SMH#3TOP=3036.47'INV.=3027.83' SMHTOP=3036.70'INV.=3025.71' SMHTOP=3034.20'INV.=3024.37' SMHTOP=3034.04'INV.=3023.34'SMHTOP=3030.47'INV.=3025.75' SMH TOP=3031.94' INV.=3025.74' SMHTOP=3033.76'INV.=3026.02' SMHTOP=3028.00'INV.=3024.75' SMH TOP=3028.35' INV.=3024.95' SMH TOP=3029.41'INV.=3025.40' SMHTOP=3031.35'INV.=3025.91' SMH TOP=3026.65' INV.=3024.13' 551 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 280 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 257 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 294 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 334 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 233 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 334 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 156 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 50 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 112 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 130 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 252LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3031.32'INV.=3024.27' 98 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 118 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 133 132Park D1.57 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac.Browtine Street (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 Ousel Trail (60' City Street) 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 105 106 107 108 8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES8"X8"X8" TEE W/ VALVES 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 12"X8" HOT TAP W/ TAPPING SLEEVE @ TIE IN - LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED 736 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 91 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 30 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1792 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 106 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 40 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 430 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 8" C900 WATER MAIN LENGTH TO BEDETERMINED FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 54 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN SMH TOP=3027.09' INV.=3023.09' SMHTOP=3029.77'INV.=3022.31' SMH TOP=3031.10' INV.=3023.64' SMH TOP=3026.32'INV.=3021.29' SMHTOP=3028.45'INV.=3022.62'' SMH TOP=3028.72' INV.=3023.69' SMH TOP=3026.28' INV.=3021.38' SMHTOP=3028.72'INV.=3019.64' SMH TOP=3028.16' INV.=3019.86' SMHTOP=3026.35' INV.=3020.87' SMHTOP=3027.50'INV.=3022.69' SMH TOP=3026.05' INV.=3022.05' SMH TOP=3026.18' INV.=3021.82' 250 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 244 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 354 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 60 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 333 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 229 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 56 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 253 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 55 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% SMH TOP=3027.42' INV.=3022.28' 193 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3027.81'INV.=3022.21' SMHTOP=3027.09'INV.=3021.07' 50 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 333 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 55 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMH TOP=3029.33' INV.=3019.42' 257 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 278 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3031.03'INV.=3023.23' 252 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 230 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3028.81'INV.=3024.07' 98 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3027.71'INV.=3020.41' 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1 DYH S DYH OSW S S 115 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 145146147148 149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park E1.53 Ac. Fallow Loop (60' City Street) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 993 L.F. OF 8" FORCE MAIN CONTRACTOR TO CORE MANHOLE @ 3021.92 CONTRACTOR TO EXTEND 12" WATER MAIN 2000 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 11.75° FITTING 11.75° FITTING 58 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 52 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 55 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 55 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN SMH TOP=3031.75' INV.=3018.58'SMHTOP=3030.68'INV.=3019.12' SMHTOP=3029.61'INV.=3019.56' SMH TOP=3027.78' INV.=3020.40' SMH TOP=3028.03'INV.=3018.98' SMH TOP=3028.00'INV.=3018.58' SMH TOP=3028.00'INV.=3018.28' SMH TOP=3028.85' INV.=3017.52' 213 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 110 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 133 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 266 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 191 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 75 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 99 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 355 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 212 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% SMHTOP=3029.33' INV.=3019.42' SMHTOP=3029.24'INV.=3017.33' 191 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 47 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% RL 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1 Park F0.76 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 1402 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1632 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1668 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN 1315 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT SMH TOP=3043.20' INV.=3032.59' SMH TOP=3039.41' W INV. = 3026.80' SMH TOP=3042.83' INV.=3033.90' 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 2.16% SMH TOP=3041.35' INV.=3034.68' SMH TOP=3041.81' INV.=3028.12' SMHTOP=xxxxx' INV.=3033.68' SMH TOP=3038.01' INV.=3025.43' SMH TOP=3036.68' INV.=3030.01' SMHTOP=3035.21'INV.=3022.86' SMH TOP=3034.28' INV.=3027.61' SMH TOP= 3034.02'INV.=3021.54' SMH TOP= 3036.70' INV.= 3024.12' SMHTOP=3033.52' INV.=3026.85' SMHTOP=3035.66' INV.=3028.99' SMHTOP=3040.13' INV.=3033.46' SMH TOP=3032.10' INV.=3025.33' 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.97% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.58% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.80% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.67% 142 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.75% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.18% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.85% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.64% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.00% 268 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.00% 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1 W Park C Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac.89 90 91 92 93 94 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 1668 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN FIRE HYDRANTFIRE HYDRANT 1668 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT SMH TOP=3031.17' INV.=3024.50' SMH TOP=3031.96' INV.=3021.19' SMH TOP=3029.14' INV.=3020.16'SMHTOP=3028.37'INV.=3021.70' SMH TOP=3030.0'INV.=3017.93' SMH TOP=3028.89' INV.=3017.37' SMH TOP=3027.75' INV.=3018.41' SMHTOP=3028.22' INV.=3018.61' SMHTOP=3028.88'INV.=3018.85' SMH TOP=3031.46' INV.=3019.88' SMH TOP=3029.48' INV.=3022.81' SMH TOP=3027.28'INV.=3020.48' SMH TOP=3027.47' INV.=3019.26' 264 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.46% 264 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.64% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 329 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 306 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.91% 168.9 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 261 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 50 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 60 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 258 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 145 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1 TBM 140 141 142 143144145 Park C3.21 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac.Park H1.43 Ac. 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 176 177 178 179 Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street)180 181 182 Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 TBM VALVE VAULTS 8"X8"X8" TEE45° FITTING 2000 L.F. OF 8" C900 WATER MAIN WETWELLTOP=3029.93' INV.=3014.08' RECEIVING SMHTOP=3029.40'INV.=3014.25' SMH TOP=3028.95' INV.=3014.32' SMH TOP=3031.16' INV.=3022.86' SMH TOP=3031.59' INV.=3016.17' SMH TOP=3031.09' INV.=3016.38' SMHTOP=3030.12'INV.=3016.80' SMH TOP=3028.15' INV.=3018.24' SMH TOP=3027.98' INV. IN=3017.00' SMHTOP=3029.50' INV.=3017.60' SMHTOP=3030.11' INV.=3015.16' SMH TOP=3029.85' INV.=3016.56' 459 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 264 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 1.75% 218 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 191 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 208 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 150 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 311 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 256 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 254 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% 53 LF OF 8" SEWER @0.40% 105 LF OF 8" SEWER @ 0.40% TBM 60 30 600 240120 W E S N ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S LATEST ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. TERRY MORAN ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4075 BILOXI, MS 39535 PH 228.896.4733 FAX 228.896.6768 TERRY MORAN, P.E., P.L.S 3. ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR CROSSINGS, AND SHALL MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. 4. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURY DEPTH OF 6.5 FT. 5. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. 6. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL LOTS HAVE IRRIGATION METERS PER CITY OF KALISPELL'S REQUIREMENTS, SEE DETAIL 14 ON SHEET CD1. Appendix B MDOT Letter of May 15, 2024 Abelin Traffic Services – Traffic Impact Study 130 South Howie Street Helena, Montana 59601 406-459-1443 September 25, 2024 Keith Haskins, P.E. City of Kalispell Public Works Department 201 1st Ave East Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Traffic Supplement Dear Keith, it is my understanding that the City of Kalispell had additional questions regarding the July 2024 Traffic Impact Study prepared by ATS for the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing development applications. The city requested information about possible mitigation of the future LOS for the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road and Tronstad Road which is anticipated to fall to LOS C by 2036, and a review of the impacts from the adjacent project. Based on the LOS analysis provided in the TIS, the LOS for the westbound approach at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road and Tronstad Road will likely fall to LOS C by 2036 with or without the proposed projects due to the anticipated background traffic growth rates in this area. However, the westbound approach at this intersection is a private residential driveway and is not a public approach under the jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell. The eastbound approach which serves these projects will operate at LOS B throughout the study period. In this instance, mitigation on the private driveway approach is not required. The Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings projects will increase vehicle delay at the intersection by 1-2 seconds during the peak hours with the addition of the planned traffic signal on Highway 93 at Tronstad Road. The signal at 93 enhances the LOS at the intersections in this area and prevents further delay with the proposed projects. The LOS summary for the intersection is shown in the following table. Level of Service Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS Existing 2024 10.3/12.3** B/B 10.8/11.9** B/B 2026 No Build 10.6/12.8** B/B 11.2/12.4** B/B 2031 No Build 11.2/13.9** B/B 11.9/13.3** B/B 2036 No Build 11.8/15.2** B/C 12.8/14.2** B/B 2026 With Projects 10.9/13.4** B/B 11.8/13.4** B/B 2031 With Projects 11.4/14.5** B/B 12.8/14.6** B/B 2036 With Projects 12.0/15.7** B/C 13.9/15.6** B/C * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. **Westbound delay is for a private residential driveway located east of Whitefish Stage Road and is not a City of Kalispell public approach. 2 The City of Kalispell also requested information regarding the expected capacity of Tronstad Road with the existing and future roadway configuration. Tronstad Road is classified as a collector roadway by the City of Kalispell but is not currently constructed to the City of Kalispell collector roadway standards. Currently Tronstad Road has a paved width of approximately 22 feet and the traffic volumes on Tronstad Road are 1,300 VPD. With the frontage of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings projects, the traffic volume increases would be approximately 2,400 VPD to the west on Tronstad Road, and 900 VPD east on Tronstad Road. The total traffic volumes on Tronstad Road will be approximately 2,500 VPD (east) and 3,700 VPD (west) at full buildout of these projects. NCHRP Report 825, Exhibit 128 (pp. 183) suggests a capacity for suburban collector roadways of 700 passenger cars per hour per lane (pc/h/ln). This rate equates to a capacity of approximately 14,000 VPD for a collector roadway. The projected peak-hour one-way traffic volume on Tronstad Road is 200-300 pc/h/ln, which is well below the roadway capacity. Collector roadways typically have a lane width of 11 to 12 feet. The difference in capacity between a roadway with 11-foot lanes and 12-foot lanes is minimal and typically roadways with wider lanes have higher vehicle speeds. Collector roads with widths of less than 24 feet are common in the Kalispell area. Other collector roads in and around Kalispell, Evergreen, and Flathead County which have a similar roadway cross-section to Tronstad Road and carry similar traffic volumes* are as follows: 2 Mile Drive 2,000 to 3,000 VPD (22-24 feet width, City of Kalispell) Helena Flats Road 3,000-5,000 VPD (22-24 feet width, Evergreen) Conrad Drive 3,000-5,000 VPD (22-24 feet width, Flathead County) West Evergreen Drive 3,000-4,000 VPD (22-24 feet width, Evergreen) East Reserve Drive 4,000-5,000 VPD (23-24 feet width, Flathead County) Halfmoon Road 3,000 VPD (22-24 feet width, Columbia Falls) *Source: 2023 MDT Traffic Volume Database The unimproved portions of Tronstad Road are not currently constructed to collector standards as defined by the City of Kalispell (12-foot travel lanes, curb & gutter, boulevard sidewalks). However, the unimproved portions of the roadway will still operate at acceptable LOS (V/C) and are comparable to other area roadways within the county as referenced above. The developers are planning to widen the road to City standards along the frontage of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing and along the frontage of the Koenig Subdivision. Tronstad Road has already been widened in front of the Quail Meadows Subdivision. In total, nearly 2,300 feet of Tronstad Road will be widened with these projects. The city has no current plans for additional widening on Tronstad Road. While the full length of Tronstad Road would not be fully developed to the City of Kalispell 3 Roadway standards with these projects, nearly half of the road will be improved, and the remaining sections are typical of the Kalispell area and have sufficient capacity for the anticipated uses. The City of Kalispell also requested an updated evaluation of the traffic operations at the proposed traffic signal on Highway 93 at Tronstad Road and at Whitefish Stage Road with the addition of the projected traffic from the Silverbrook development, Stillwater Commons development, and Stillwater Village projects to the west of Highway 93. The traffic projections from impact studies prepared for these projects were added to the traffic modeling for the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing developments. Overall, the majority of the traffic impacts from these projects is concentrated along Highway 93 with less than 5 VPH added to Tronstad Road or Whitefish Stage Road. This small amount of traffic does not impact the projected LOS or operations at the Tronstad Road intersections east of Highway 93. These additional projects will impact the future operations at the intersection of Tronstad Road and Highway 93 by increasing the vehicle delay by 1-2 seconds, but the LOS will remain at B through 2036 with the planned traffic signal. The results of this analysis are shown in the following table. Level of Service Highway 93 Road & Tronstad Road AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Highway 93 & Tronstad Road* Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS Existing 2024 18.9/12.5 C/B 14.5/14.3 B/B 2026 No Build 20.9/13.1 C/B 15.2/15.2 C/C 2031 No Build 32.7/14.3 D/B 18.6/17.2 C/C 2036 No Build 58.7/15.8 F/C 22.0/19.6 C/C 2026 With Projects** 11.6 B 10.1 B 2031 With Projects** 12.8 B 11.9 B 2036 With Projects** 14.4 B 14.9 B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. ** With proposed traffic signal at Tronstad Road & Highway 93 ATS also reviewed the impacts to traffic signal warrants at Highway 93 and Tronstad Road with the additional planned project west of Highway 93. These additional projects will increase traffic congestion at this intersection and contribute to the overall need for traffic control improvements and safety concerns in this area and will have an impact on the LOS at the intersection. The traffic signal warrants for Tronstad Road are primarily driven by traffic from the east on Tronstad Road. While these projects, they will add traffic onto Highway 93 (200-300 VPH), the traffic volumes on Highway 93 were already projected to be well above the minimum thresholds for the signal warrants and adding additional traffic to Highway 93 does not impact the results of the warrant calculations. The traffic signal warrants will still be met based on the anticipated traffic from Tronstad Road. 4 From a roadway network planning perspective, it would be desirable for the design and construction of the Traffic Signal for Highway 93 and Tronstad Road should commence and be installed prior to the build-out of homes in Phase 1 of the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing developments. Phase 1 of the development will include construction of 100 of the proposed 355 residential lots and will produce up to 943 vehicle trips per day. The combination of existing traffic in this area, traffic from the Quail Meadows and Koenig Subdivision developments, the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing developments, and the other planned developments west of Highway 93 will drive the need for the proposed traffic signal over the next three years. If these developments do not proceed, the Traffic Signal will still be fully warranted within the foreseeable future. As mentioned in previous reports, the existing right-turn channelization from Tronstad Road onto Highway 93 prevents an accurate assessment at this time. Estimating the number of vehicles that would use the intersection if it were signalized is largely based on the previous traffic counts taken before the right-turn channelization was in place and may not have fully accounted for the left-turn demand from Tronstad Road onto Highway 93. It is estimated that 100 to 200 VPH will travel south from Tronstad Road during the AM and PM peak traffic periods using either Highway 93 or Whitefish Stage Road by full buildout of Phase 1 of the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing developments. If only half of these vehicles used the new signal at Highway 93, the signal would be warranted with Phase 1. Additionally, the planned MDT reconstruction of Whitefish Stage Road may impact the need to install the planned signal on Highway 93. When construction is occurring on Whitefish Stage Road, the traffic will naturally shift towards Highway 93, particularly when construction is occurring between Tronstad Road and Rose Crossing. A traffic signal at Highway 93 and Tronstad road will significantly improve traffic flow and safety through this area during the time when Whitefish Stage Road is under construction. Traffic signals can take a year or more to design and install. Realistically, if a traffic signal were approved at Highway 93 and Tronstad Road in the Fall of 2024, it may not be operational until the spring of 2026. Waiting to approve the signal for installation until after the Phase 1 of the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing build-out is completed may delay the traffic signal installation until 2027 or 2028 and may not provide adequate access to the Tronstad Road area. Delaying the signal installation may also slow potential development west of Highway 93 from the Silverbrook and Stillwater developments. Based on this information, it is recommended that design of the traffic signal for Highway 93 and Tronstad Road commence as soon as possible, and the signal be installed prior to the build-out of homes in Phase 1 of the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing developments. If you have any additional questions regarding 5 the traffic impacts from the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing projects, please feel free to call me at 406-459-1443. Sincerely, Bob Abelin, P.E. PTOE Abelin Traffic Services, Inc. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study UPDATE Kalispell, Montana Prepared For: Elcan & Associates 2862 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36606 July, 2024 130 South Howie Street Helena, Montana 59601 406-459-1443 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana i Table of Contents A. Executive Summary ......................................................................................1 B. Project Description ........................................................................................1 C. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................1 Adjacent Roadways ..............................................................................2 Traffic Data ............................................................................................3 Historic Traffic Data ...............................................................................4 Additional Developments.......................................................................5 Planned Road Improvements ................................................................5 Whitefish Stage Road Improvements ....................................................5 Level of Service .....................................................................................5 Area Crash Data ...................................................................................6 D. Proposed Development ..............................................................................6 E. Trip Generation and Assignment ................................................................7 F. Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................9 G. Traffic Impacts Outside of the Development .............................................10 Long Range Traffic Projections ...........................................................13 Signalization Warrant Analysis ............................................................14 Additional Considerations ....................................................................15 Signalization Warrants..........................................................................15 Warrant Conclusions ............................................................................23 H. Impact Summary & Recommendations ....................................................25 List of Figures Figure 1 – Proposed Development Site ...................................................................2 Figure 2 – Proposed 110 Acre Subdivision .............................................................8 Figure 3 –Peak Hour Trip Distribution (Existing Configuration) ...............................9 Figure 4 – Peak Hour Trip Distribution (Traffic Signal at 93) ...................................10 List of Tables Table 1 – Historic Traffic Data .................................................................................4 Table 2 – 2024 Level of Service Summary ..............................................................5 Table 3 – Trip Generation Rates .............................................................................7 Table 4 – Projected 2026 Level of Service No-Build Conditions .............................11 Table 5 – Projected 2031 Level of Service No-Build Conditions .............................11 Table 6 – Projected 2036 Level of Service No-Build Conditions .............................11 Table 7 – Projected Level of Service with Development (Existing Configuration) ...11 Table 8 – Projected Level of Service with Development (Traffic Signal at 93) ........12 Table 9 – Projected 2031 Level of Service with Development ................................14 Table 10 – Projected 2036 Level of Service with Development ..............................14 Table 11 – Traffic Signal Warrant Summary ...........................................................24 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 1 July, 2024 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Residential Subdivisions Traffic Impact Study UPDATE Kalispell, Montana A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions are residential projects encompassing 110.54-acres of property located east of Highway 93 along the northside of Tronstad Road in Kalispell, Montana. At full build-out, the project would produce 3,348 new daily vehicle trips in this area from 355 dwelling units. As proposed, the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions would not create any roadway capacity problems in this area, if necessary, mitigation measures are implemented. Based on the current development plans for the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions, a Traffic Signal would be warranted at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. Per the MUTCD signalization warrant analysis, an intersection must meet one or more of the nine traffic signal warrants for a Traffic Signal to be warranted. This intersection will meet three of the nine warrants with the planned project. The Intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road would also benefit to develop a northbound right-turn deceleration lane on Highway 93 at Tronstad Road to serve the planned project at full build-out. With the reconstruction of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection to include the warranted traffic signal, a large amount of the existing and future traffic, which currently uses Whitefish Stage Road, will divert onto Highway 93, improving the overall capacity of the roadways in this area. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This document studies the possible effects on the surrounding road system from a proposed residential development currently located in Flathead County east of US Highway 93 and north of Kalispell, Montana. The document provides information regarding the possible traffic impacts to the area and identifies traffic mitigation efforts that the development may require. The development would include up to 355 single-family residences located in Section 18, T29N, R21W north of Tronstad Road. The project would be annexed into the City of Kalispell upon approval. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed development property consists of a 110.54-acre parcel of agricultural land located east of U.S. Highway 93, immediately north of Tronstad Road. The topography in this area is open and flat. The surrounding environment is a mix of both rural residential properties and larger agricultural parcels east of the US Highway 93 corridor. See Figure 1 for a location map of the proposed development. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 2 July, 2024 Adjacent Roadways US Highway 93 is a divided four-lane north/south principal arterial roadway that extends north from Kalispell to Whitefish. The typical section is comprised of two 12-foot travel lanes with 4-foot & 8-foot shoulders in each direction separated by a 40-foot depressed median. The median (flush) openings-sanctuaries are provided at major intersections to facilitate left-turn and crossing movements. 0.75-miles to the north of Tronstad Road is the Church Drive (underpass) partial cloverleaf interchange. The intersection with Rose Crossing, 1.25-miles south of Tronstad Road, is under traffic signal control, and 2.25-miles further south is the signalized intersection with West Reserve Drive. The posted speed-limit is 65 MPH north of West Reserve Drive. ATS acquired traffic data collected by MDT that indicates the roadway carried 25,385 VPD north of West Reserve Drive in 2022. Figure 1- Proposed Development Site Whitefish Stage Road is a north/south major collector that serves both as a farm to market route and provides access to residences in the outlying area between US Highway 93 and US Highway 2. The paved section is comprised of two 11-foot travel lanes with 1-foot shoulders. The posted speed limit is 50 MPH north of Reserve Drive. Whitefish Stage Road is under traffic signal control at the intersection with West Reserve Drive and Stop control at its termini 1,300 VPD 25,38 6 VP D = Study Intersection Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings 4,80 0 VP D Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 3 July, 2024 with MT 40. The data obtained by ATS from MDT indicates that the roadway carried 4,800 VPD north of Reserve Drive in 2022. Tronstad Road is an east/west collector route that extends east from US Highway 93 to Whitefish Stage Road and provides access to both agricultural and residential properties east of US Highway 93. Both ends of the route are under STOP control. The intersection with US Highway 93 is located across from Silverbrook Drive. Tronstad Road has a paved width of 20-22 feet and the posted speed limit is 35 MPH. The intersection with Highway 93 was converted into a ¾ movement approach restricting the approach to right-turn only in 2023. The traffic data collected by Flathead County 2020 indicates that Tronstad Road currently carries 1,300 VPD. The roadway is considered a collector route in the county growth policy. This road has been upgraded along the Quail Meadows Subdivision frontage and will be upgraded along the frontage of this development for a length of 0.25 miles. These upgrades along the frontage of the property will include sidewalks and curb and gutter along the north side of Tronstad Rand and will facilitate the additional vehicles from this development. Traffic Data Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) assembled traffic count data previously collected in January of 2022 for the study intersections of US Highway 93 with Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road with Tronstad Road to evaluate the operational characteristics. This effort included peak- hour turning movement counts. A current traffic volume count was collected along Tronstad Road in March of 2023. The configuration of the Tronstad Road/Highway 93 intersection was recently changed to a right-out only approach. To account for this change, all traffic turning south from Tronstad Road onto Highway 93 (left turns) from the 2022 traffic counts were redirected to Whitefish Stage Road, south to Kalispell. Since much of the analysis for this project was performed for a condition where Tronstad Road is re-opened for left turns at Highway 93, the 2022 data was used for the intersection calculations and factored to current 2024 conditions. Using more recent data for the Tronstad Road intersection is less accurate for future traffic projections with this project as the left turns at Highway 93 are not currently possible. The raw data collected for this project was adjusted for seasonal variation in accordance with the data collected from MDT’s 2022 annual count station located on US Highway 2 west of Kalispell (Station A-24). This count station data indicated that the data collected in January 2022 is approximately 88% of the AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) in this area. The raw traffic counts were factored up by 12% to account for the seasonal traffic variations in this area. The 2022 data was also factored up by 6% to account for the traffic volume growth in this area from 2022 to 2024. The LOS analysis was done using the 15-min flow method as generally recommended by MDT for analysis of MDT routes. Using the 15-min peak-hour flow rate provides a good analysis Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 4 July, 2024 of the highest use conditions at an intersection and allows for multi-period traffic analysis at intersections that may be functioning near capacity. Using the peak-hour method typically provides a slightly more conservative result when compared to using the full-peak hour and converting the data to peak flow rates using peak-hour factors. The peak 15-minutes is well established for highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road and always falls between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM on weekdays. The 15-minute peak was confirmed using 24-hour traffic data for all the study routes collected by ATS. Additionally, 10 years of MDT data for Highway 93 was reviewed which also confirmed a consistent peak 15-minute period between 7:30-8:00 AM and 5:00-5:30 PM on every recorded count. Since the 15-minute peak flow rate was used for the calculations, a Peak-Hour Factor (PHF) was not applied to the side-street results, but initial volumes were completed for the highest 15 minutes times four, which does account for the PHF. The signal analysis did include an additional 0.92 PHF which provides a conservative calculation. Heavy vehicle percentages have ranged from 1-4% on Highway 93 based on MDT data for this section. A 3% truck percentage for the study area was used for the overall traffic analysis. Vehicle speed and volume data were also collected along Tronstad Road during the March count period. This information suggested that the average vehicle speed on this section of roadway was 41 MPH, while the 85th percentile speed was 49 MPH for all recorded vehicles. In general, vehicle travel speeds on this section are traveling above the posted 35 MPH speed limit. The ADT traffic volume collected on the section during the count period was 1,349 VPD which is near the available 2020 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 have increased at a rate of 4% annually over the last ten years. Table 1 – Historic Traffic Data Location 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 US 93 N of Reserve #15-7B-018 16,220 16,550 16,961 20,215 19,742 23,165 21,126 22,027 25,386 25,919 US 93 S of Happy Valley Dr #15-4A-042 14,140 14,320 15,900 15,654 16,898 17,708 16,150 17,962 17,998 26,386 Whitefish Stage N of Reserve #15-7B-078 2,460 3,609 3,834 3,803 3,860 4,035 3,753 4,053 4,802 4,501 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 5 July, 2024 Additional Developments The Quail Meadows Subdivision is a 10-acre residential project located north of Tronstad Road just west of the proposed development site. At full build-out, the project would produce 368 new daily vehicle trips in this area and would have two approaches onto Tronstad Road. The developers have recently widened Tronstad Road in front of their development to the City of Kalispell urban standards. The anticipated traffic from this project was included in this analysis. Planned Road Improvements The draft 2021 Kalispell Move 2040 Transportation Plan predicts that the traffic volumes on Highway 93 will increase significantly north of Reserve Drive by 2040. The plan also anticipates that the intersections of Reserve Drive with Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road will fall to LOS F by 2040, without major improvements to meet future traffic demands and anticipated LOS issues at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. Whitefish Stage Road Improvements The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is planning to reconstruct Secondary Highway 292 (Whitefish Stage Road) between West Reserve Drive and Montana Highway 40 (MT 40). The project is currently in the design phase and will include reconstructing and widening Whitefish Stage Road for 9 miles from 0.5 miles north of Reserve Street to MT 40, adding a northbound left-turn at Rose Crossing Intersection. The project will all include flattening roadside slopes and ditches where possible to improve safety and drainage and upgrading signage and striping. A construction date for this project has not yet been set. Level of Service To determine the operational characteristics at intersecting roadways, generally a Level of Service (LOS) analysis is conducted using peak hour operations information. 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. The intersections are graded from A to F representing the average delay that a vehicle entering an intersection can expect. Typically, a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak-hour conditions. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 6 July, 2024 Table 2 – 2024 Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road* 18.9/12.5 C/B 14.5/14.3 B/B Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 10.3/12.3 B/B 10.8/11.9 B/B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. Table 2 shows the existing 2024 LOS for the AM and PM peak hours without the traffic from the proposed development. This analysis takes into account the new right-turn only lane configuration at Highway 93 and Tronstad Road which was completed in the spring of 2023. The LOS calculations are included in Appendix C. The table shows that all of the study intersections are functioning at an acceptable level of service with the intersection improvements planned for this area. All roadways and intersections are currently operating below capacity and can accommodate some future growth. If additional large development occurs along Tronstad Road (such as the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions) a traffic signal will need to be installed at the Intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road to accommodate the increase in traffic demand through this intersection. 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 eight crashes were recorded at the intersection of Tronstad Road and US Highway 93, and three crashes occurred at the intersection of Tronstad Road with Whitefish Stage Road. The crash rates for these intersections are 0.3 crashes per MVE and 0.4 crashes per MVE respectively. Four other crashes were dispersed along the one mile Tronstad Road corridor, representing 1.50 crashes per MVMT. The crash rates indicate that no geometric, roadway characteristic, or traffic control deficiencies exist in the area. No roadway improvements are currently necessary to improve traffic safety. D. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions are two proposed developments located on a 110.54-acre parcel of agricultural land in Flathead County located east of U.S. Highway 93 just north of Tronstad Road. The combined developments would include up to 355 single-family residences within the project, which is 175 units less than the previous proposal. This project would grant access onto Tronstad Road at two locations with the eastern approach Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 7 July, 2024 lining up with Sirucek Lane. A previously planned connection north to Highland Drive is no longer being proposed. The interior road network would be constructed to the City of Kalispell standards. The developers would also plan to reconstruct Tronstad Road for a length of 1/4 mile adjacent to the development property to an urban collector section and will construct the full street improvements (curb & gutter, sidewalk, etc.) on the north side of the roadway. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2026. The developers are willing to help reconstruct the intersection of Tronstad Road and Highway 93 to include a traffic signal. This report includes an analysis of both the existing road configuration and the traffic patterns if the traffic signal at Highway 93 was constructed. The Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions site plans are shown in Figure 2. The phasing plan for the proposed development is a follows: Phase 1 – 102 Lots (Tronstad Meadows) Phase 2 – 100 Lots (Tronstad Meadows) Phase 3 – 75 Lots (Whitetail Crossing) Phase 4 – 78 Lots (Whitetail Crossing) TOTAL – 355 Lots 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 249 AM peak hour trips, 334 PM peak hour trips, and 3,348 daily trips. This is a decrease from the 4,266 daily trips estimated from the previous configuration of this project. See Table 3 for detailed trip generation information. Table 3 - Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units AM Peak Hour Trip Ends per Unit Total AM Peak Hour Trip Ends PM Peak Hour Trip Ends per Unit Total PM Peak Hour Trip Ends Weekday Trip Ends per Unit Total Weekday Trip Ends Single-Family Homes ITE #210 355 0.70 249 (65in/184out) 0.94 334 (210in/124out) 9.43 3,348 Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 8 July, 2024 Figure 2 – Proposed Subdivision Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 9 July, 2024 F. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The traffic distribution and assignment for the proposed subdivision was based upon the existing ADT volumes along the adjacent roadways. With the new restriction of turning movements onto Highway 93 from Tronstad Road, it is likely that drivers will use different routes when approaching and leaving the site to/from the south. Significantly more traffic will use Whitefish Stage Road towards Kalispell and returning drivers will be more likely to use Highway 93 to Tronstad. If the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad road was reconstructed to include a traffic signal, the traffic distribution would change significantly with most traffic using the Highway 93 traffic signal for access to the south. The drivers are expected to distribute onto the surrounding road network as shown in Figure 3 & 4. Figure 3 – Peak-Hour Trip Distribution (Existing Configuration) Highland 65% Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings 45% 30% Tronstad Road Wh i t e f i s h S t a g e R o a d 5% Hi g h w a y 9 3 20% 0% 0% Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 10 July, 2024 Figure 4 – Peak-Hour Trip Distribution (Traffic Signal at 93) 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 no-build condition LOS analysis is shown in Tables 4 to 6. The anticipated intersection LOS with the proposed development is shown in Table 7. The LOS calculations are included in Appendix C of this report. The tables indicate that the construction of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions will not cause any roadway capacity problems in this area. The traffic volume increases will be approximately 900 VPD to the west on Tronstad Road, 2,400 VPD east on Tronstad Road, 1,500 VPD increase on Whitefish Stage Road, and 900 VPD increase on Highway 93. The total Traffic volumes on Tronstad Road will be approximately 3,800 VPD and 6,300 VPD on Whitefish Stage Road. All intersections will continue to function at an acceptable Level of Service through 2026. The intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road will warrant a Traffic Signal with the additional traffic from the planned project. If no traffic signal is installed on at Tronstad Road, the intersection with Highway 93 will operate with an acceptable LOS, due to the left-turn restrictions at this location, but operational impacts to Whitefish Stage Road would be increased and traffic mobility through this section of Kalispell will be hindered into the future. Highland 20% 45% 30% Tronstad Road Wh i t e f i s h S t a g e R o a d 5% Hi g h w a y 9 3 0% Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 11 July, 2024 Table 4 – Projected 2026 Level of Service No-Build Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road* 20.9/13.1 C/B 15.2/15.2 C/C Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 10.6/12.8 B/B 11.2/12.4 B/B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. Table 5 – Projected 2031 Level of Service No-Build Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road* 32.7/14.3 D/B 18.6/17.2 C/C Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 11.2/13.9 B/B 11.9/13.3 B/B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. Table 6 – Projected 2036 Level of Service No-Build Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road* 58.7/15.8 F/C 22.0/19.6 C/C Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 11.8/15.2 B/C 12.8/14.2 B/B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. Table 7 – Projected Level of Service with Development (Existing Configuration) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road* 22.2/14.9 C/B 16.4/17.8 C/C Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 12.1/16.1 B/C 12.4/15.2 B/B Tronstad Road & West Approach 10.5 B 12.5 B Tronstad Road & East Approach 10.6 B 12.0 B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 12 July, 2024 Upon approval from MDT to reconstruct and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road (which is warranted) the overall operations of the area intersections will change considerably. The traffic signal will draw a significant amount of traffic from the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions and the other developments in this area and would decrease traffic volumes on Whitefish Stage Road. Under this configuration, the intersections would function as shown in Table 8. It should be noted that the traffic signal would be a requirement to allow left turns onto Highway 93 from Tronstad Road as the approach would function at LOS F without the higher form of traffic control. The installation of a traffic signal must be reviewed and approved by MDT based on traffic signal warrants for this location (see below). The signal at this location would also serve Silverbrook Drive to the west. The other intersections in this area would see an improvement in LOS under this configuration as more traffic would be drawn to the signal at Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. 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). Under this road configuration the traffic volume increases would be approximately 2,400 VPD to the west on Tronstad Road, 900 VPD east on Tronstad Road, 800 VPD increase on Whitefish Stage Road, and 1,600 VPD increase on Highway 93. The total Traffic volumes on Tronstad Road will be approximately 4,000 VPD and 5,800 VPD on Whitefish Stage Road. Based on the City of Kalispell Standards, the collector roadways in this area (Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road) have a capacity of 8,000 VPD or more. Table 8 – Projected Level of Service with Development (Traffic Signal at 93) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road** 10.6 B 8.0 A Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 10.9/13.4 B/B 11.8/13.4 B/B Tronstad Road & West Approach 9.8 A 10.0 B Tronstad Road & East Approach 9.5 A 9.9 A * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. ** With Traffic Signal The corridor context of highway 93 prevents many alternative intersection traffic controls in this area. Possible alternatives, such as roundabouts or interchanges, would not be appropriate at this location and were excluded due to traffic volumes, speeds, topography, and constructability. A traffic signal is currently the only feasible alternative for improvements at this location. For this reason, only a 3/4 access stop-controlled intersection and a signal were analyzed for this report. A roundabout, restricted crossing U-turn, or other intersection control were excluded from analysis Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 13 July, 2024 based on corridor consistency. ATS reviewed the left- and right-turn lane warrants for the approach intersections of US Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road with Tronstad Road based on the recommended practices from the MDT Road Design Manual with the anticipated traffic from the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions. 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. The need for the deceleration/turning lanes on Highway 93 would be largely the same with the proposed traffic signal at Highway 93. The turn-lane warrant calculations are included in Appendix D of this report. Long Range Traffic Projections The 2021 Kalispell Move 2040 Transportation Plan predicts traffic conditions on roadways throughout Kalispell through 2040 and considers all anticipated land development projects which are expected to occur in this area of Kalispell over the next 20 years. The 2021 Kalispell Move 2040 Transportation Plan suggests that traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 93 will increase to 32,100 VPD. To evaluate the 5- and 10-year traffic volume projections for this area, ATS reviewed the 2040 traffic volumes from the 2021 Kalispell Move 2040 Transportation Plan and scaled the anticipated traffic volume growth to likely 2031 and 2036 conditions using an overall traffic volume growth rate of 2% annually. It should be noted that the 2% growth rate suggested by the transportation plan is significantly lower than the 4% growth rate which is currently being experienced in this area. However, it is not expected that the area will maintain a 4% growth rate in the long term. It is also likely that the planned Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions will account for much of the growth that will happen in this area over the next 5-10 years. For this reason, a 3% long-term annual growth rate was used for the area on top of the projected traffic volumes calculated for the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions to create an average between the historic trends and the future projected growth from the transportation plan. The 5- and 10-year LOS projections are shown in the following figures. The results of this analysis suggest that the intersections within the study area will continue to function at LOS C or better through 2036 with the planned project if the traffic signal is constructed at the intersection of Tronstad Road and Highway 93. The planned MDT road improvements for Whitefish Stage Road should allow this route to operate effectively into the future. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 14 July, 2024 Table 9 – Projected 2031 Level of Service with Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road** 11.4 A 9.0 A Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 11.4/14.5 B/B 12.8/14.6 B/B Tronstad Road & West Approach 10.2 B 10.8 B Tronstad Road & East Approach 9.6 A 10.1 B * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. ** With Traffic Signal Table 10 – Projected 2036 Level of Service with Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (Sec.) LOS Delay (Sec.) LOS US Highway 93 & Tronstad Road** 12.4 B 10.5 B Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road* 12.0/15.7 B/C 13.9/15.6 B/C Tronstad Road & West Approach 10.3 B 11.0 B Tronstad Road & East Approach 9.7 A 10.2 A * Eastbound/Westbound LOS & Delay. ** With Traffic Signal SIGNALIZATION WARRANT ANALYSIS A study was performed at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road to determine if this intersection meets signalization warrants now or will meet warrants in the future with the construction of the proposed Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions. This study was completed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The study was based on traffic data collected from the June 2023 traffic impact study produced for the Town Pump Project prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS). The MUTCD outlines nine traffic signal warrants. One or more of these warrants should be met before a traffic signal is installed at an intersection. In order to evaluate these signal warrants, it is necessary to assemble 24-hour traffic volume data, pedestrian volumes, and historic crash trends Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 15 July, 2024 for an intersection. The individual traffic signal warrants include: • Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, • Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, • Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Vehicular Volume, • Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume, • Warrant 5 – School Crossing, • Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System, • Warrant 7 – Crash Experience, • Warrant 8 – Roadway Network • Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. Additional Considerations It should also be noted that the MUTCD allows lower minimum threshold volumes for signalization at locations where the speed limit is greater than 40 MPH or where the community has a population of less than 10,000. The current posted speed limit on this section of Highway 93 is 65 MPH. Therefore, this criterion is met. Typically, the MUTCD warrants are based only on the traffic from the highest volume approach. The intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road was recently reconstructed to allow only right turns onto Highway 93 from Tronstad Road. Under this configuration, a traffic signal would typically never be warranted and the current traffic data from Tronstad Road is of little value since no left-turn movements are currently possible. For this reason, ATS utilized only peak-hour information available for this approach from January of 2022 to determine the ‘existing’ left-turn traffic demand for the intersection which was 20 to 30 VPH in 2022. The MUTCD also allows for the elimination of some right-turn traffic on the minor approach from the warrant evaluation. Section 4C.01 of the MUTCD stated that: “Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered.” In this instance, the intersection with Tronstad Road would be designed with separated right-turn and left-turn lanes on the approach to Highway 93 if constructed. To be conservative with the traffic volume warrants, the analysis for this intersection was based on only the left-turn movements onto Highway 93 and excludes all right-turn traffic. In this instance, it is expected that Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 16 July, 2024 70% of the traffic approaching the intersection from the planned developments will turn left onto Highway 93. It can be a challenge to perform precise four-hour and eight-hour warrants based on projected traffic volumes. Typically, traffic impact analysis projects focus on peak-hour traffic volumes only and there is little specific guidance to find the fourth or eighth highest generation hour for a residential project. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions would produce vehicle trips throughout the day proportional to the existing hourly traffic volumes along Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road for which directional hourly traffic volumes from 2022 are available. SIGNALIZATION WARRANTS Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.02 “The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 is satisfied and Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 is satisfied and the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours.” For a roadway with one lane on the minor street and two lanes on the major approach, Table 4C-1 gives the minimum vehicular volumes of 420 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) on the major street and 105 VPH on the minor approach for Condition A. For Condition B, the minimum vehicular volume is 630 VPH on the major street and 70 VPH on the minor approach under reduction C (major street exceeds 40 mph). Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 17 July, 2024 An analysis of the hourly data for Highway 93 indicates that the eighth highest hour has over 2,000 VPH, which is well above the minimum volumes for both Conditions A and B. The projected eight-hour approaching left-turn traffic volume on the westbound approach for Tronstad Road is 102 VPH which may be sufficient to meet this warrant. Therefore, this warrant may be met. Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.03 “The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.” Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 18 July, 2024 The data collected by MDT indicates that the fourth highest hour on this section of Highway 93 has over 2,300 VPH, which is well above the limit of the chart for figure 4C-2. Therefore, the minor street approach needs only to meet the minimum volume (80 VPH). The future projected left-turn traffic volumes from Tronstad Road in the 4th highest hour is 90 VPH which would be sufficient to meet condition B of the fourth-hour vehicle volume. Therefore, this warrant may be met. Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Vehicular Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.04 “The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: Approximate Minor Street Volume Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 19 July, 2024 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach; or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and 2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.” The analysis of the current and projected traffic data indicates that Highway 93 has an afternoon peak-hour traffic volume of approximately 2,500 VPH and the projected peak hour westbound left-turn traffic from Tronstad Road is 93 VPH. These volumes may be sufficient to meet this warrant for peak-hour traffic volumes. However, it should be noted that this warrant is unusual and is not typically used unless other warrant criteria are met. In this case other warrants are near or met, so this warrant should be considered at this location. Therefore, this warrant may be met. Afternoon Peak Hour Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 20 July, 2024 Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume MUTCD SECTION 4C.05 “The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.” At this time there is little pedestrian activity crossing this section of Highway 93. An analysis of the traffic data collected by ATS in 2022 did not indicate any pedestrians crossing the highway at this location during the 12-hour count. Therefore, this warrant is not met. Warrant 5 – School Crossing MUTCD SECTION 4C.06 “The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word “schoolchildren” includes elementary through high school students. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school children at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 students during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.” Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 21 July, 2024 There are no existing nearby schools which may benefit from a traffic signal at this location. Therefore, this warrant is not met. Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System MUTCD SECTION 4C.07 “Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.” There is an existing traffic signal along Highway 93, 1.3 miles to the south at Rose Crossing. This existing signal likely provides acceptable platooning, and there is not likely a specific need for the signal at Tronstad Road to provide additional platooning along this section of Highway 93. Therefore, this warrant is not met. Warrant 7 – Crash Experience MUTCD SECTION 4C.08 “The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met: A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 22 July, 2024 requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.” According to the MDT vehicle crash data for this location, a total of eight crashes have occurred at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road in the last five years and four occurred at the intersection in 2021. This is technically below the crash rate needed to meet this warrant (five crashes in 12 months) but is close to meeting this warrant. The intersection crash warrant is not currently met, but small increases in traffic volumes at Tronstad Road with the planned projects in this area could increase the crash rate at this location and cause this warrant to be met in the near future. Warrant 8 – Roadway Network MUTCD SECTION 4C.09 “Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.” Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday). A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study.” Highway 93 is a principal arterial route and Tronstad Road is currently a local road within Flathead County. The intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road currently has over 2,000 vehicles entering per hour and is projected to meet Warrants 1, 2, and 3 for condition A and projected to meet the necessary volumes for condition B. However, a local road such as Tronstad Road is not typically considered a ‘major route’. Based on this data, this warrant is not currently met, but could become met in the future if other areas to the north are developed and Tronstad Road becomes a major east/west route. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 23 July, 2024 Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing MUTCD Section 4C.10 “The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” Highway 93 has no at-grade railroad crossings in this area. Therefore, this warrant is not met. WARRANT CONCLUSIONS At full buildout of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions and Quail Meadows projects, a total of 420 units would be constructed along Tronstad Road, most of which would likely prefer to use Highway 93 to reach Kalispell to the south. Based on the traffic data reviewed for this project, traffic signal warrants will likely be met at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad with the development of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions and the other planned projects in this area if the intersection was reconstructed to all full traffic movements. It is likely that the intersection will meet volume warrants 1, 2, and 3 even if right-turning traffic is excluded. Other warrants such as 7 (crash experience) and 8 (roadway network) will likely become met with the projected traffic volume increases and changes to the road system which area currently expected in this area. Under the current road configuration with the left-turn restrictions from Tronstad Road, all traffic from the planned projects in this area wishing to proceed to the south towards Kalispell will be pushed onto Whitefish Stage Road, which is currently in need of reconstruction. Currently there is no way to accurately assess when traffic signal warrants could be met at this location since left turns are restricted. It is also unknown how much additional traffic may be drawn to this intersection if a signal is installed in the future. It is clear that a significant amount of traffic from the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions and Quail Meadows project would turn left at this traffic signal if it were installed at this location (up to 180 vehicles per hour). The signal could also be utilized by the Silverbrook and Stillwater Village projects to the west of Highway 93 to turn towards Whitefish from Silverbrook Drive. At this time, we recommend the developers of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions begin a traffic signal design for this location and work with MDT to determine an appropriate timing for the installation of the signal. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update Kalispell, Montana Abelin Traffic Services 24 July, 2024 Table 11 - Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Projected 2026 Volumes 8 Hour - Warrant 4 Hour - Warrant Peak Hour - Warrant HWY 93 NB+SB Traffic Tronstad Road WB Left- Turn HWY 93 Major 1A/1B 420/630 Tronstad Minor 1A/1B 140/70 HWY 93 Major 1000 Tronstad Minor 80 HWY 93 Major 1300 Minor Tronstad Minor 99 7:00-8:00 1720 177 X/X X/X X X X X 8:00-9:00 1878 84 X/X 0/X X X X 0 9:00-10:00 1959 103 X/X 0/X X X X X 10:00-11:00 2061 107 X/X 0/X X X X X 11:00-12:00 2144 99 X/X 0/X X X X 0 12:00-13:00 2368 85 X/X 0/X X X X 0 13:00-14:00 2178 94 X/X 0/X X X X 0 14:00-15:00 2351 94 X/X 0/X X X X 0 15:00-16:00 2258 101 X/X 0/X X X X 0 16:00-17:00 2496 97 X/X 0/X X X X 0 17:00-18:00 2438 96 X/X 0/X X X X 0 18:00-19:00 1722 66 X/X 0/0 X 0 X 0 Results Criteria Hour Met Hours Required Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 12 8 Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 11 8 Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 11 4 Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 1 H. IMPACT SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS As proposed, the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions would not create any roadway capacity problems in this area, if necessary, mitigation measures are implemented. Based on the current development plans for the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions, a Traffic Signal would be warranted at the intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. Per the MUTCD signalization warrant analysis, an intersection must meet one or more of the nine traffic signal warrants for a Traffic Signal to be warranted. This intersection will meet three of the nine warrants with the planned project. The Intersection of Highway 93 and Tronstad Road would also benefit to develop a northbound right-turn deceleration lane on Highway 93 at Tronstad Road to serve the planned project at full build-out. With the reconstruction of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection to include the warranted traffic signal, a large amount of the existing and future traffic, which currently uses Whitefish Stage Road, will divert onto Highway 93, improving the overall capacity of the roadways in this area. APPENDIX A Traffic Data Summary of Turning Movement Counts - from Traffic Count on iOS Study Name K21-111 Quail Meadows Observer Janessa Courtney Location Tronstad Road & US Highway 93 Weather Haze, 32 degrees Date Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total All 7:30 AM 8 203 3 4 201 0 0 1 19 6 0 9 454 7:45 AM 4 177 5 3 179 0 2 0 11 11 1 14 407 8:00 AM 9 194 4 0 150 0 1 2 17 4 0 9 390 8:15 AM 12 196 4 5 160 0 0 0 9 5 0 2 393 Total 33 800 18 12 719 0 3 3 57 26 1 34 1706 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total All 4:30 PM 6 214 13 9 236 3 2 1 10 4 0 12 510 4:45 PM 17 210 12 5 244 3 1 0 11 2 1 6 512 5:00 PM 12 240 14 8 240 1 1 0 6 4 0 3 529 5:15 PM 11 257 12 7 263 3 0 0 9 6 0 6 574 5:30 PM 15 209 16 9 250 2 0 0 13 4 3 6 527 Total 61 1152 70 38 1247 12 5 1 50 20 4 34 2694 13-Jan-22 Summary of Turning Movement Counts - from Traffic Count on iOS Study NameK21-111 Quail Meadows Observer Janessa Courtney Location Tronstad Road & Whitefish Stage Road, Kalispell, MT 59901 Weather Cloudy, 25 degrees Date Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total All 7:31 AM 3 4 0 0 39 5 3 0 10 1 0 0 65 7:46 AM 6 5 0 0 32 15 3 0 3 0 0 0 64 8:01 AM 2 14 1 0 25 4 3 0 5 0 0 0 54 8:16 AM 5 16 0 0 13 3 3 0 7 1 0 0 48 8:31 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 16 41 1 0 110 27 12 0 25 2 0 0 234 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total All 4:30 PM 6 20 0 0 19 6 11 0 6 0 0 0 68 4:45 PM 0 29 0 0 24 7 9 0 11 0 0 0 80 5:00 PM 5 18 0 0 30 9 12 0 7 0 0 0 81 5:15 PM 8 26 0 0 20 5 15 0 4 0 0 0 78 5:30 PM 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 9 Total 21 95 0 0 94 27 50 0 29 0 0 0 316 12-Jan-22 For Project:Tronstad2023 Project Notes: Location/Name:Merged Report Generated:6/9/2023 8:40:22 AM Speed Intervals 1 MPH Time Intervals Instant Traffic Report From 3/14/2023 12:00:00 PM through 3/16/2023 8:59:59 AM 85th Percentile Speed 49 MPH 85th Percentile Vehicles 2150 Max Speed 73 MPH on 3/15/2023 6:56:22 AM Total Vehicles 2530 AADT:1349 Volumes - weekly counts Time 5 Day 7 Day Average Daily 843 843 AM Peak 7:00 AM 109 109 PM Peak 4:00 PM 160 160 Speed Speed Limit:35 85th Percentile Speed:49 50th Percentile Speed:42 10 MPH Pace Interval:38.0 MPH to 48.0 MPH Average Speed:40.58 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Count over limit N/A 640 1150 193 N/A N/A N/A % over limit N/A 79.2 78.5 75.1 N/A N/A N/A Avg Speeder N/A 44.5 44.4 44.0 N/A N/A N/A Avg Speed N/A 40.8 40.6 39.6 N/A N/A N/A Class Counts Number % VEH_SM 82 3.2 VEH_MED 2332 92.2 VEH_LG 116 4.6 [VEH_SM=motorcycle,VEH_MED = sedan,VEH_LG = truck] Merged Monthly Counts Tronstad2023 from Tue-Mar-14-2023-12-00-PM to Thu-Mar-16-2023-08-59-AM Mar 2023 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Week Weekend Week Day 85% Hour Day Avg Avg Avg Speed 0 - 1 **3 4 ***3.5 0 56 1 - 2 **3 0 ***1.5 0 55 2 - 3 **2 3 ***2.5 0 50 3 - 4 **2 2 ***2 0 47.5 4 - 5 **15 12 ***13.5 0 48.25 5 - 6 **30 19 ***24.5 0 45 6 - 7 **88 76 ***82 0 47.7 7 - 8 **109 109 ***109 0 46.25 8 - 9 **79 32 ***55.5 0 48.65 9 - 10 **72 ****72 0 46.6 10 - 11 **106 ****106 0 47 11 - 12 **87 ****87 0 47 12 - 13 *47 102 ****74.5 0 48.1 13 - 14 *98 97 ****97.5 0 47.8 14 - 15 *144 122 ****133 0 48.85 15 - 16 *134 130 ****132 0 49.35 16 - 17 *140 180 ****160 0 48.15 17 - 18 *88 95 ****91.5 0 49.6 18 - 19 *60 63 ****61.5 0 51.5 19 - 20 *46 47 ****46.5 0 46.4 20 - 21 *28 18 ****23 0 48.6 21 - 22 *14 8 ****11 0 49.5 22 - 23 *6 4 ****5 0 46.5 23 - 24 *3 3 ****3 0 46 Totals 0 808 1465 257 0 0 0 % of Total 0%31.94%57.91%10.16%0%0%0% Page 1 APPENDIX B Traffic Model Tronstad 110 Acres Seasonal Adjustment 1.12 Traffic Model 2022-2024 Adjustment Factor 1.06 Existing 2024 AM Peak Hour 15 Min x 4 HWY 93 WF Stage 974 5 3 5 Highland Drive 1007 3 West App East App 13.9/11.8 C/B 9.9/11.4 A/B 0 43 0 0 24 0 955 0 0 0 0 71 185 0 19 28 0 71 0 5 0 5 Tronstad Road 0 38 0 0 9 14 14 5 964 33 33 0 0 66 90 14 0 9 104 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Existing 2024 PM Peak Hour 15 Min x 4 HWY 93 WF Stage 1282 4 5 4 Highland Drive 1249 5 West App East App 14.5/14.3 B/B 10.4/11.1 B/B 14 28 0 0 43 0 1249 0 0 0 0 57 142 0 33 28 0 57 0 9 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 52 0 0 0 57 24 0 1220 90 90 0 0 85 43 57 5 5 76 5 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Quail Meadows Generated Traffic AM Peak Hour HWY 93 WF Stage 1 0 0 Highland Drive 8 0%IN 7 West App OUT 20 East App 100%0% 8 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 12 0 0 Tronstad Road 6 0 2 1 0 12 5 10 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Quail Meadows Generated Traffic PM Peak Hour HWY 93 WF Stage 3 0 0 Highland Drive 6 IN 23 West App OUT 14 East App 100%0% 6 0 0 1 6 5 5 3 0 8 0 0 Tronstad Road 18 0 1 4 0 8 16 7 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Site Generated Traffic AM Peak Hour Right-Turn Only HWY 93 WF Stage 20 0 0 Highland Drive 55 0%IN 65 West App OUT 184 East App 50%50% 55 28 8 2 28 8 8 20 0 64 28 64 Tronstad Road 24 24 9 14 24 64 29 120 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres IN 65 Traffic Model OUT 184 Site Generated Traffic PM Peak Hour Right-Turn Only HWY 93 WF Stage 63 0 0 Highland Drive 37 0%IN 210 West App OUT 124 East App 50%50% 37 19 26 8 19 26 26 63 0 43 19 43 Tronstad Road 79 79 6 45 79 43 95 81 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Site Generated Traffic AM Peak Hour With Signal HWY 93 WF Stage 20 0 0 Highland Drive 57 0%IN 65 West App OUT 184 East App 50%50% 57 69 8 2 74 7 7 20 86 18 69 23 Tronstad Road 26 24 6 12 24 18 30 35 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres IN 65 Traffic Model OUT 184 Site Generated Traffic PM Peak Hour With Signal HWY 93 WF Stage 24 0 0 Highland Drive 14 0%IN 210 West App OUT 124 East App 50%50% 14 47 26 7 50 21 21 24 82 12 47 16 Tronstad Road 84 79 4 40 79 12 138 24 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.06 Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2026 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only No-Build Condition 1033 5 3 5 Highland Drive 1075 3 Quail Meadows East App 20.9/13.1 C/B 10.6/12.8 B/B 0 53 0 0 25 0 1012 0 8 1 0 77 196 0 21 0 12 76 0 5 0 5 Tronstad Road 0 40 6 0 10 17 16 5 1022 35 47 0 0 70 96 20 0 10 147 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2026 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only 16.2 C No-Build Condition 1362 4 5 4 Highland Drive 1329 5 Quail Meadows East App 15.2/15.2 C/C 11.2/12.4 B/B 15 36 0 0 46 0 1324 0 6 5 0 65 151 0 38 0 8 60 0 10 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 55 18 0 0 62 29 0 1294 96 104 0 0 91 45 76 5 5 114 5 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.21 Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2031 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only No-Build Condition 1179 6 4 6 Highland Drive 1226 4 Quail Meadows East App 32.7/14.3 D/B 11.2/13.9 B/B 0 60 0 0 29 0 1155 0 8 1 0 88 224 0 24 0 12 86 0 6 0 6 Tronstad Road 0 46 6 0 11 19 18 6 1166 40 52 0 0 80 109 22 0 11 167 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2031 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only 16.2 C No-Build Condition 1554 5 6 5 Highland Drive 1517 6 Quail Meadows East App 18.6/17.2 C/C 11.9/13.3 B/B 17 40 0 0 52 0 1511 0 6 5 0 74 172 0 43 0 8 60 0 11 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 63 18 0 0 70 33 0 1477 96 118 0 0 103 52 85 6 6 129 6 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.36 Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2036 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only No-Build Condition 1325 7 4 7 Highland Drive 1377 4 Quail Meadows East App 58.7/15.8 F/C 11.8/15.2 B/C 0 66 0 0 33 0 1298 0 8 1 0 98 252 0 27 0 12 97 0 6 0 6 Tronstad Road 0 52 6 0 13 21 21 6 1311 45 57 0 0 90 123 24 0 13 186 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2036 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only 16.2 C No-Build Condition 1747 5 7 5 Highland Drive 1704 7 Quail Meadows East App 22.0/19.6 C/C 12.8/14.2 B/B 19 44 0 0 59 0 1699 0 6 5 0 82 194 0 48 0 8 78 0 13 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 71 18 0 0 79 36 0 1660 123 131 0 0 116 58 93 6 6 144 6 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.06 (3% X 2 YR) Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2026 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only 1052 5 3 5 Highland Drive 1130 3 West App East App 22.2/14.9 C/B 10.5 B 10.6 B 12.1/16.1 B/C 0 109 28 8 28 0 1012 0 36 10 0 85 196 0 40 0 76 103 64 5 0 5 Tronstad Road 0 40 30 24 10 26 30 5 1022 60 112 0 0 70 96 49 0 10 267 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2026 HWY 93 WF Stage Right-Out Only 16.2 C 1425 4 5 4 Highland Drive 1344 5 West App East App 16.4/17.8 C/C 12.5 B 12.0 B 12.4/15.2 B/C 15 45 19 26 52 0 1324 0 24 31 0 91 151 0 60 0 52 79 43 10 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 55 97 79 0 65 65 0 1294 174 147 0 0 91 45 199 5 5 195 5 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.06 Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2026 HWY 93 WF Stage With Signal 1053 5 3 5 Highland Drive 1132 3 West App East App 22.4/200.2 C/F 10.6 B 9.8 A 9.5 A 10.9/13.4 B/B 0 110 69 8 28 0 1012 0 74 7 0 82 196 0 41 116 18 145 23 5 0 5 Tronstad Road 0 40 26 24 10 23 29 5 1022 60 54 0 0 70 96 50 0 10 156 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2026 HWY 93 WF Stage 1386 4 5 4 Highland Drive 1344 5 West App East App 15.2/456.9 C/F 8.0 A Signal 10.0 A 9.9 A 11.8/13.4 B/B 15 45 47 26 52 0 1324 0 50 21 0 81 151 0 60 112 12 107 16 10 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 55 84 79 0 65 65 0 1294 174 108 0 0 91 45 199 5 5 104 5 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.21 (3% X 7 YR) Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2031 HWY 93 WF Stage +5 Year Growth 1199 6 4 6 Highland Drive 1283 4 West App East App 11.4 B 10.2 B 9.6 A 11.4/14.5 B/B 0 117 69 8 31 0 1155 0 82 8 0 94 224 0 44 120 30 155 23 6 0 6 Tronstad Road 0 46 32 24 11 25 31 6 1166 65 71 0 0 80 109 52 0 11 172 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2031 HWY 93 WF Stage +5 Year Growth 1579 5 6 5 Highland Drive 1531 6 West App East App 9.0 A 10.8 B 10.1 B 12.8/14.6 B/B 17 54 47 26 59 0 1511 0 55 26 0 95 172 0 67 116 21 115 16 11 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 63 102 79 0 74 73 0 1477 188 130 0 0 103 52 223 6 6 123 6 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Growth Factor 1.36 (3% X 12 YR) Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic AM Peak Hour 2036 HWY 93 WF Stage +10 Year Growth 1345 7 4 7 Highland Drive 1434 4 West App East App 12.4 B 10.3 B 9.7 A 12.0/15.7 B/C 0 123 69 8 35 0 1298 0 82 8 0 105 252 0 47 124 30 166 23 6 0 6 Tronstad Road 0 52 32 24 13 27 33 6 1311 70 76 0 0 90 123 54 0 13 187 0 Sirucek Lane Tronstad 110 Acres Traffic Model Total Projected Traffic PM Peak Hour 2036 HWY 93 WF Stage +10 Year Growth 1771 5 7 5 Highland Drive 1719 7 West App East App 10.5 B 11.0 B 10.2 B 13.9/15.6 B/C 19 59 47 26 66 0 1699 0 55 26 0 103 194 0 72 120 21 124 16 13 0 0 Tronstad Road 0 71 102 79 0 83 76 0 1660 201 144 0 0 116 58 231 6 6 134 6 Sirucek Lane APPENDIX C LOS Calculations HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Existing AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 5 90 0 0 43 0 38 964 14 0 19 955 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)95 43 38 19 Capacity, c (veh/h)353 522 709 695 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.08 0.05 0.03 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)18.9 12.5 10.4 10.3 Level of Service (LOS)C B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)18.9 12.5 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 8:57:26 AMTronstadAM.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Existing PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 0 43 0 0 28 0 52 1220 57 0 33 1249 14 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)43 28 52 33 Capacity, c (veh/h)421 417 541 534 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)14.5 14.3 12.4 12.2 Level of Service (LOS)B B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)14.5 14.3 0.5 0.3 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/14/2024 10:27:21 AMTronstadPM.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Existing AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)14 0 129 5 0 0 14 66 0 0 185 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)143 5 14 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)818 501 1356 1529 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.3 12.3 7.7 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.3 12.3 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 9:09:15 AMWFStageAM.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Existing PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)57 0 101 1 0 0 24 85 5 0 142 43 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)158 1 24 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)774 524 1384 1499 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.8 11.9 7.6 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.8 11.9 1.7 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 9:26:40 AMWFStagePM.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected AM No-Build Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 5 96 0 0 53 0 40 1022 20 0 21 1012 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)101 53 40 21 Capacity, c (veh/h)326 498 675 657 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.11 0.06 0.03 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)20.9 13.1 10.7 10.7 Level of Service (LOS)C B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)20.9 13.1 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 9:17:33 AMTronstadAMnoBuild.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 0 45 0 0 36 0 55 1294 76 0 38 1324 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)45 36 55 38 Capacity, c (veh/h)397 388 506 492 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)15.2 15.2 13.0 12.9 Level of Service (LOS)C C B B Approach Delay (s/veh)15.2 15.2 0.5 0.4 Approach LOS C C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 9:19:26 AMTronstadPMNoBuild.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM No Build Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)17 0 147 5 0 0 16 70 0 0 196 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)164 5 16 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)803 465 1342 1524 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.6 12.8 7.7 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.6 12.8 1.5 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 9:21:53 AMWFStageAMNoBuild.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)62 0 114 1 0 0 29 91 5 0 151 46 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)176 1 29 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)756 487 1370 1491 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.2 12.4 7.7 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.2 12.4 1.9 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 9:24:29 AMWFStagePMwithNoBuild.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected AM No-Build5 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 6 109 0 0 60 0 46 1166 22 0 24 1155 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)115 60 46 24 Capacity, c (veh/h)242 446 594 578 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.13 0.08 0.04 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)2.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)32.7 14.3 11.6 11.5 Level of Service (LOS)D B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)32.7 14.3 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS D B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:16:10 AMTronstadAMnoBuild5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected PM No Build5 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)1 0 52 0 0 40 0 63 1477 85 0 43 1511 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)53 40 63 43 Capacity, c (veh/h)317 335 427 414 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.10 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)18.6 17.2 14.9 14.7 Level of Service (LOS)C C B B Approach Delay (s/veh)18.6 17.2 0.6 0.4 Approach LOS C C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:18:14 AMTronstadPMNoBuild5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM No Build5 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)19 0 167 6 0 0 18 80 0 0 224 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)186 6 18 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)770 411 1306 1512 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.2 13.9 7.8 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.2 13.9 1.5 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:20:13 AMWFStageAMNoBuild5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM No Build5 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)70 0 129 1 0 0 33 103 6 0 172 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)199 1 33 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)720 437 1339 1475 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.00 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.9 13.3 7.8 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.9 13.3 2.0 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:22:18 AMWFStagePMwithNoBuild5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected AM No-Build10 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 6 123 0 0 66 0 52 1311 24 0 27 1298 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)129 66 52 27 Capacity, c (veh/h)187 399 524 507 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.17 0.10 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)4.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)58.7 15.8 12.6 12.5 Level of Service (LOS)F C B B Approach Delay (s/veh)58.7 15.8 0.5 0.3 Approach LOS F C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:45:23 AMTronstadAMnoBuild10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected PM No Build10 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)1 0 58 0 0 44 0 71 1660 93 0 48 1699 19 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)59 44 71 48 Capacity, c (veh/h)270 290 360 349 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.15 0.20 0.14 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.8 0.5 0.7 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)22.0 19.6 17.4 17.0 Level of Service (LOS)C C C C Approach Delay (s/veh)22.0 19.6 0.7 0.5 Approach LOS C C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:47:45 AMTronstadPMNoBuild10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM No Build10 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)21 0 186 6 0 0 21 90 0 0 252 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)207 6 21 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)738 361 1271 1499 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.8 15.2 7.9 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.8 15.2 1.6 0.0 Approach LOS B C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:49:32 AMWFStageAMNoBuild10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM No Build10 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)79 0 144 1 0 0 36 116 6 0 194 59 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)223 1 36 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)684 391 1306 1459 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.8 14.2 7.8 0.2 0.2 7.5 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.8 14.2 2.0 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 5/10/2024 10:51:16 AMWFStagePMnoBuild10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected AM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)0 5 96 1 0 109 0 40 1022 49 0 40 1012 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)101 110 40 40 Capacity, c (veh/h)309 474 675 641 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.23 0.06 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)22.2 14.9 10.7 11.0 Level of Service (LOS)C B B B Approach Delay (s/veh)22.2 14.9 0.4 0.4 Approach LOS C B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 12:51:29 PMTronstadAMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)26 0 267 5 0 0 30 70 0 0 196 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)293 5 30 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)800 330 1339 1524 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.02 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.1 16.1 7.8 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.1 16.1 2.5 0.0 Approach LOS B C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 12:58:30 PMWFStageAMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)30 60 1 1 103 10 1 0 1 76 0 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)30 1 2 112 Capacity, c (veh/h)1470 1536 797 768 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.15 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 0.2 0.2 7.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 10.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.6 0.1 9.5 10.5 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 12:54:24 PMApproach1AMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)24 112 1 5 85 8 10 0 10 64 0 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)24 5 20 92 Capacity, c (veh/h)1495 1470 763 735 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.13 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 0.1 0.1 7.5 0.0 0.0 9.8 10.6 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)1.4 0.4 9.8 10.6 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 12:56:51 PMApproach2AMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection HWY 93 & Tronstad Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Highway 93 Time Analyzed Projected PM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)1 0 45 1 0 45 0 55 1294 199 0 60 1324 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)46 46 55 60 Capacity, c (veh/h)362 326 506 441 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.14 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 17.8 13.0 14.5 Level of Service (LOS)C C B B Approach Delay (s/veh)16.4 17.8 0.5 0.6 Approach LOS C C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:00:33 PMTronstadPMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)65 0 195 1 0 0 65 91 5 0 151 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)260 1 65 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)746 354 1363 1491 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.4 15.2 7.8 0.4 0.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.4 15.2 3.4 0.0 Approach LOS B C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:05:05 PMWFStagePMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)97 174 1 1 79 31 1 0 1 52 0 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)97 1 2 76 Capacity, c (veh/h)1474 1395 591 558 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.14 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.6 0.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 12.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.1 0.1 11.1 12.5 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:02:09 PMApproach1PMwithAltA.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM No Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)79 147 5 10 91 26 1 0 5 43 0 19 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)79 10 6 62 Capacity, c (veh/h)1465 1423 782 578 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.4 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.1 9.6 12.0 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.9 0.6 9.6 12.0 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:03:41 PMApproach2PMwithAltA.xtw HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 Analyst RLA Analysis Date Sep 8, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction MDT Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92 Urban Street Highway 93 Analysis Year 2026 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection Tronstad Road File Name TronstadSignalAM.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 5 96 116 1 110 40 1022 50 41 1012 1 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 72.1 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2 Case Number 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 22.9 22.9 77.1 77.1 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.0 17.4 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 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 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 111 126 121 43 1111 54 45 551 550 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1623 1304 1612 520 1809 1610 515 1900 1899 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 9.4 6.6 3.6 12.4 1.0 3.8 11.4 11.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.0 15.4 6.6 15.1 12.4 1.0 16.3 11.4 11.4 Green Ratio ( g/C )0.18 0.18 0.18 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 327 228 289 387 2608 1161 379 1370 1369 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )0.339 0.553 0.418 0.112 0.426 0.047 0.118 0.402 0.402 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile)99 127.5 108.8 16.6 125 9.3 17.8 128 127.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile)4.0 5.1 4.4 0.7 5.0 0.4 0.7 5.1 5.1 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 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 36.2 42.9 36.4 8.5 5.6 4.0 8.9 5.5 5.5 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.9 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 36.4 43.7 36.8 9.1 6.1 4.1 9.6 6.4 6.4 Level of Service (LOS)D D D A A A A A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 36.4 D 40.3 D 6.1 A 6.5 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 10.6 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.45 B 2.30 B 1.85 B 1.63 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.67 A 0.89 A 1.48 A 1.43 A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 12:47:43 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM With Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)23 0 156 5 0 0 29 70 0 0 196 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)179 5 29 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)789 432 1339 1524 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.01 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.9 13.4 7.7 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.9 13.4 2.4 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:09:51 PMWFStageAMwithAltB.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM With Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)26 60 1 1 145 7 1 0 1 18 0 74 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)26 1 2 92 Capacity, c (veh/h)1423 1536 739 841 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.1 0.1 7.3 0.0 0.0 9.9 9.8 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)2.4 0.1 9.9 9.8 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:07:01 PMApproach1AMwithAltB.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM With Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)24 54 1 5 82 8 10 0 10 23 0 69 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)24 5 20 92 Capacity, c (veh/h)1499 1544 795 896 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.10 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 0.1 0.1 7.3 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)2.3 0.4 9.6 9.5 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:08:33 PMApproach2AMwithAltB.xtw HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 Analyst RLA Analysis Date Sep 8, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction MDT Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92 Urban Street Highway 93 Analysis Year 2026 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection Tronstad Road File Name TronstadSignalPM.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 1 45 112 1 45 55 1294 199 60 1324 15 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 76.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2 Case Number 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 18.7 18.7 81.3 81.3 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 4.8 13.4 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 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 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 51 122 50 60 1407 216 65 729 727 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1618 1376 1616 371 1809 1610 389 1900 1892 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 8.6 2.8 7.4 15.1 3.7 7.9 14.8 14.8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 2.8 11.4 2.8 22.4 15.1 3.7 23.1 14.8 14.8 Green Ratio ( g/C )0.14 0.14 0.14 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 259 223 222 300 2758 1228 309 1449 1443 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )0.197 0.545 0.225 0.200 0.510 0.176 0.211 0.503 0.504 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile)46.6 123.6 45.7 25.6 120.7 28.3 28.2 134.7 134.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile)1.9 4.9 1.8 1.0 4.8 1.1 1.1 5.4 5.4 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 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 38.4 43.4 38.4 8.9 4.6 3.3 9.1 4.6 4.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.5 0.7 0.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 38.5 44.2 38.6 10.4 5.3 3.6 10.7 5.8 5.8 Level of Service (LOS)D D D B A A B A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 38.5 D 42.6 D 5.3 A 6.0 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 8.0 A Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.46 B 2.30 B 1.84 B 1.61 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.57 A 0.77 A 1.88 B 1.74 B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:13:31 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM With Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)65 0 104 1 0 0 65 91 5 0 151 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)169 1 65 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)695 431 1363 1491 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.8 13.4 7.8 0.4 0.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.8 13.4 3.4 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:19:38 PMWFStagePMwithAltB.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM With Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)84 174 1 1 107 21 1 0 1 12 0 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)84 1 2 62 Capacity, c (veh/h)1452 1395 577 785 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.5 0.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 11.3 10.0 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B A Approach Delay (s/veh)2.8 0.1 11.3 10.0 Approach LOS A A B A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:16:31 PMApproach1PMwithAltB.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2026 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM With Signal Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)79 108 5 10 81 26 1 0 5 16 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)79 10 6 63 Capacity, c (veh/h)1478 1470 817 797 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.4 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.1 9.4 9.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)3.4 0.7 9.4 9.9 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:18:20 PMApproach2PMwithAltB.xtw HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 Analyst RLA Analysis Date Sep 8, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction MDT Time Period AM Peak PHF 0.92 Urban Street Highway 93 Analysis Year 2031 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection Tronstad Road File Name TronstadSignalAM5yr.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 6 109 120 1 117 46 1166 52 44 1155 1 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 70.9 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2 Case Number 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 24.1 24.1 75.9 75.9 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.8 18.6 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.01 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 126 130 128 50 1267 57 48 628 628 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1624 1286 1612 449 1809 1610 444 1900 1899 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 9.9 7.0 5.5 15.7 1.1 5.4 14.4 14.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.8 16.6 7.0 20.0 15.7 1.1 21.3 14.4 14.4 Green Ratio ( g/C )0.19 0.19 0.19 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 347 232 309 325 2563 1141 316 1346 1346 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )0.363 0.562 0.415 0.154 0.495 0.050 0.151 0.467 0.467 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile)111.5 131.8 113.8 23.5 169.4 10.6 23.3 172 171.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile)4.5 5.3 4.6 0.9 6.8 0.4 0.9 6.9 6.9 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 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 35.4 42.7 35.5 10.7 6.5 4.4 11.4 6.4 6.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 35.7 43.5 35.8 11.8 7.2 4.5 12.4 7.5 7.5 Level of Service (LOS)D D D B A A B A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 35.7 D 39.7 D 7.3 A 7.7 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 11.4 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.45 B 2.30 B 1.86 B 1.63 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.70 A 0.91 A 1.62 B 1.56 B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:20:28 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak +5 Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)25 0 172 6 0 0 31 80 0 0 224 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)197 6 31 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)756 385 1304 1512 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.4 14.5 7.8 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.4 14.5 2.3 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:25:45 PMWFStageAMwith5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak +5 Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)32 65 1 1 155 8 1 0 1 30 0 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)32 1 2 112 Capacity, c (veh/h)1410 1529 708 803 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.14 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 10.1 10.2 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.6 0.1 10.1 10.2 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:22:52 PMApproach1AMwith5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak +5 Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)24 71 1 6 94 8 11 0 11 23 0 69 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)24 6 22 92 Capacity, c (veh/h)1484 1522 765 873 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 9.8 9.6 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)2.0 0.4 9.8 9.6 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:24:21 PMApproach2AMwith5.xtw HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 Analyst RLA Analysis Date Sep 8, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction MDT Time Period PM Peak PHF 0.92 Urban Street Highway 93 Analysis Year 2031 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection Tronstad Road File Name TronstadSignalPM5yr.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 1 52 116 1 54 63 1477 223 67 1511 17 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 75.5 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2 Case Number 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 19.5 19.5 80.5 80.5 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.2 14.1 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 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 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 59 126 60 68 1605 242 73 831 830 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1617 1367 1615 304 1809 1610 321 1900 1892 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 9.0 3.3 12.7 19.6 4.4 13.0 19.1 19.2 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.2 12.1 3.3 32.1 19.6 4.4 32.8 19.1 19.2 Green Ratio ( g/C )0.15 0.15 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 272 228 235 243 2729 1215 251 1434 1428 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )0.216 0.553 0.254 0.282 0.588 0.200 0.290 0.580 0.581 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile)53.2 127.8 54.3 39.3 167.5 35.3 42.3 185.6 185.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile)2.1 5.1 2.2 1.6 6.7 1.4 1.7 7.4 7.4 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 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 37.9 43.2 37.9 12.4 5.4 3.5 12.7 5.4 5.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.8 0.2 2.9 0.9 0.4 2.9 1.7 1.7 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 38.0 44.0 38.1 15.3 6.4 3.9 15.6 7.1 7.1 Level of Service (LOS)D D D B A A B A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 38.0 D 42.1 D 6.4 A 7.4 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 9.0 A Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.45 B 2.30 B 1.84 B 1.62 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.58 A 0.79 A 2.07 B 1.92 B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:26:31 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak +5 Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)74 0 123 1 0 0 73 103 6 0 172 59 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)197 1 73 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)657 376 1331 1475 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.8 14.6 7.9 0.5 0.5 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.8 14.6 3.4 0.0 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:31:35 PMWFStagePMwith5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak +5 Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)102 188 1 1 115 26 1 0 1 21 0 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)102 1 2 76 Capacity, c (veh/h)1436 1379 529 696 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 0.6 0.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 11.8 10.8 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.1 0.1 11.8 10.8 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:28:56 PMApproach1PMwith5.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak +5 Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)79 130 6 11 95 26 1 0 6 16 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)79 11 7 63 Capacity, c (veh/h)1460 1442 802 770 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.4 0.4 7.5 0.1 0.1 9.5 10.1 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.1 0.7 9.5 10.1 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:30:20 PMApproach2PMwith5.xtw HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 Analyst RLA Analysis Date Sep 8, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction MDT Time Period AM Peak Future PHF 0.92 Urban Street Highway 93 Analysis Year 2036 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection Tronstad Road File Name TronstadSignalAM10yr.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 6 123 124 1 123 52 1311 54 47 1298 1 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 69.6 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2 Case Number 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 25.4 25.4 74.6 74.6 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 9.6 19.9 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.03 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 141 135 135 57 1425 59 51 706 706 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1623 1268 1612 387 1809 1610 382 1900 1899 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 10.4 7.3 8.3 19.8 1.2 7.8 18.0 18.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.6 17.9 7.3 26.4 19.8 1.2 27.7 18.0 18.0 Green Ratio ( g/C )0.20 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 368 236 329 271 2517 1120 262 1322 1321 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )0.384 0.572 0.409 0.209 0.566 0.052 0.195 0.534 0.534 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile)123.7 136 117.7 32.7 215.9 12.1 30.6 217.4 217.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile)4.9 5.4 4.7 1.3 8.6 0.5 1.2 8.7 8.7 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 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 34.7 42.4 34.5 13.8 7.6 4.8 14.6 7.4 7.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.7 0.9 0.1 1.7 1.6 1.6 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 34.9 43.2 34.8 15.5 8.6 4.9 16.3 8.9 8.9 Level of Service (LOS)C D C B A A B A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 34.9 C 39.0 D 8.7 A 9.2 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 12.4 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.45 B 2.30 B 1.86 B 1.63 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.72 A 0.93 A 1.76 B 1.69 B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:32:34 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak +10Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)27 0 187 6 0 0 33 90 0 0 252 35 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)214 6 33 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)724 343 1269 1499 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.02 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.0 15.7 7.9 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.0 15.7 2.3 0.0 Approach LOS B C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:37:15 PMWFStageAMwith10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak +10Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)32 70 1 1 166 8 1 0 1 30 0 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)32 1 2 112 Capacity, c (veh/h)1397 1523 694 789 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.14 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.2 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 10.3 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.5 0.0 10.2 10.3 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:34:42 PMApproach1AMwith10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak +10Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)24 76 1 6 105 8 13 0 13 23 0 69 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)24 6 26 92 Capacity, c (veh/h)1470 1515 751 857 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.7 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)1.9 0.4 10.0 9.7 Approach LOS A A A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:35:58 PMApproach2AMwith10.xtw HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency ATS Duration, h 0.250 Analyst RLA Analysis Date Sep 8, 2023 Area Type Other Jurisdiction MDT Time Period PM Peak Future PHF 0.92 Urban Street Highway 93 Analysis Year 2036 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection Tronstad Road File Name TronstadSignalPM10yr.xus Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 1 58 120 0 59 71 1660 231 72 1699 19 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 74.8 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2 Case Number 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Phase Duration, s 20.2 20.2 79.8 79.8 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.6 14.8 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 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 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 65 130 64 77 1804 251 78 934 933 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1616 1359 1610 249 1809 1610 265 1900 1892 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 9.4 3.5 22.5 25.2 4.7 21.3 24.5 24.6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.6 12.8 3.5 47.4 25.2 4.7 46.7 24.5 24.6 Green Ratio ( g/C )0.15 0.15 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 284 233 246 196 2703 1203 203 1419 1414 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X )0.230 0.561 0.260 0.393 0.668 0.209 0.386 0.658 0.660 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile)58.7 132.1 57.9 61.7 217.8 39.5 61.7 235.9 236.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile)2.3 5.3 2.3 2.5 8.7 1.6 2.5 9.4 9.5 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 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 37.4 43.0 37.4 18.2 6.4 3.8 18.2 6.3 6.3 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.2 0.8 0.2 5.8 1.3 0.4 5.5 2.4 2.4 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 37.5 43.8 37.6 24.0 7.7 4.2 23.7 8.7 8.7 Level of Service (LOS)D D D C A A C A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 37.5 D 41.7 D 7.9 A 9.3 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 10.5 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.45 B 2.30 B 1.84 B 1.62 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.60 A 0.81 A 2.25 B 2.09 B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:38:05 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad & WF Stage Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street Whitefish Stage Road Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak +10Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)83 0 134 1 0 0 76 116 6 0 194 66 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)217 1 76 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)621 340 1299 1459 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.00 0.06 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)1.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)13.9 15.6 7.9 0.5 0.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)13.9 15.6 3.4 0.0 Approach LOS B C A A Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:44:41 PMWFStagePMwith10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & West Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street West Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak +10Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)102 201 1 1 124 26 1 0 1 21 0 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)102 1 2 76 Capacity, c (veh/h)1425 1364 514 681 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 0.6 0.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 12.0 11.0 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.0 0.1 12.0 11.0 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:41:57 PMApproach1PMwith10.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst RLA Intersection Tronstad Road & East Approach Agency/Co.ATS Jurisdiction MDT Date Performed 1/23/2022 East/West Street Tronstad Road Analysis Year 2036 North/South Street East Approach Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak +10Year Peak Hour Factor 1.00 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 110 Acre Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)79 144 6 13 103 26 1 0 6 16 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 2.23 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)79 13 7 63 Capacity, c (veh/h)1451 1425 783 752 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 0.5 0.5 7.5 0.1 0.1 9.6 10.2 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.9 0.8 9.6 10.2 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2024 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 7/16/2024 1:43:16 PMApproach2PMwith10.xtw APPENDIX D Turn-Lane Warrants Appendix C Allwest – Geotechnical Report GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY 2720 Palmer St Unit A., Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: 406.206.5911 • Fax: 208.762.0942 Hayden, ID • Lewiston, ID • Meridian, ID • Spokane Valley, WA • Tri-Cities, WA • Missoula, MT www.allwesttesting.com January 27, 2023 Mr. Dan Elcan Elcan & Associates, Inc. 2862 Dauphin Street Mobile, Alabama 36606 RE: Geotechnical Evaluation Tronstad Road Development Tronstad Road and Sirucek Lane Intersection Kalispell, Montana ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Mr. Elcan, ALLWEST has completed the following geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Tronstad Road development to be located at Tronstad Road and Sirucek Lane Intersection in Kalispell, Montana. The purpose of this evaluation was to characterize the soil and geologic conditions on the property. The attached report presents the results of the field evaluation and our recommendations to assist with design and construction of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call us at (406) 206-5911. Sincerely, ALLWEST Prepared by: Reviewed by: Andrew Warren. P.E. Shawn Turpin, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer WWW.ALLWESTTESTING.COM GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION TRONSTAD ROAD DEVELOPMENT TRONSTAD ROAD AND SIRUCEK LANE INTERSECTION KALISPELL, MONTANA ALLWEST PROJECT NO. 722-090G January 27, 2023 Prepared for: Mr. Dan Elcan Elcan & Associates, Inc. 2862 Dauphin Street Mobile, Alabama 36606 Prepared by: ALLWEST 2720 Palmer St Unit A Missoula, Montana 59808 01/27/2023 Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................ 1  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 1  3.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................... 2  4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 2  4.1 General Geologic Conditions .................................................................................. 3  4.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 3  4.2.1 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................ 3 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 4  5.1 Topsoil .................................................................................................................... 5  5.2 Sand ....................................................................................................................... 5  5.3 Silt ........................................................................................................................... 5  5.4 Clay ........................................................................................................................ 5  5.5 Groundwater Conditions ......................................................................................... 5  6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................ 5  6.1 Moisture Content .................................................................................................... 6  6.2 Classification .......................................................................................................... 6  6.3 Moisture-Density Relationship ................................................................................ 6  6.4 California Bearing Ratio .......................................................................................... 7  6.5 Consolidation / Swell .............................................................................................. 7  6.6 Chemical Analysis .................................................................................................. 7  7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 8  7.1 Site Grading ............................................................................................................ 9  7.1.1 Clearing and Stripping ........................................................................................ 9 7.1.2 Excavation .......................................................................................................... 9 7.1.3 Subgrade Preparation ......................................................................................... 9 7.1.4 Materials ........................................................................................................... 10 7.1.4.1 On-site Soil ................................................................................................ 10  7.1.4.2 Import Soil ................................................................................................. 11  7.1.4.3 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................................. 11  7.1.5 Wet Weather Construction ................................................................................ 11 7.1.6 Cold Weather Construction ............................................................................... 12 7.2 Foundations .......................................................................................................... 12  7.2.1 Spread Footings ............................................................................................... 12 7.2.2 Concrete Mat Foundation ................................................................................. 13 7.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................... 14  7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................................ 15  7.5 Stormwater and Drainage ..................................................................................... 15  7.6 Pavement ............................................................................................................. 15  Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  7.6.1 Roadways ......................................................................................................... 16 7.7 Owner Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities ............................................ 16  8.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED SERVICES ............................................................ 17  9.0 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... 17  Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report (Published by Geoprofessional Business Association) APPENDICES Appendix A –  Vicinity Map (Figure A-1)  Boring Location Map (Figure A-2) Appendix B –  Boring Logs  Unified Soil Classification System Appendix C –  Laboratory Test Results (Figures C-1 through C-12) Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ALLWEST has completed the authorized geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Tronstad Road Development project located north of the intersection of Tronstad Road and Sirucek Road in Kalispell, Montana. The general location of the project is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure A-1, in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the subsurface conditions throughout the project site with respect to the proposed design and construction. This report details the results of the field evaluation and presents recommendations to assist in the design and construction of the proposed development. A summary of geotechnical considerations follows:  The general subsurface soil profile observed in the borings consisted of a thin layer of topsoil covering various interlayers of glacial sediment to the maximum depth explored, approximately 40.5 feet. The glacial sediment mostly consisted of silty sand, sandy silt, and lean clay; however, layers of silty clay and silt were also observed at various locations and depths.  Results of a screening level liquefaction analysis indicate potential vertical settlements on the order of 2 inches when subject to strong seismic ground motion. This settlement, should it occur, would be differential settlement. Based on published geologic information, soils observed in the explorations, and laboratory testing results, the probability of liquefaction occurring is estimated to be low.  The proposed residential structures within the development can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of compacted imported granular structural fill extending to a properly prepared subgrade. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for design of spread footing foundations bearing on compacted granular structural fill as recommended herein, provided estimated settlements as outlined herein are acceptable. Recommendations for a mat foundation system are also provided herein should the design team desire a more rigid foundation system, which can better resist detrimental effects to structures should a severe seismic event inducing liquefaction occur.  Pavement sections consisting of 3 inches of asphalt over 9 inches of base course and 3 inches of asphalt over 12 inches of base course are recommended for use on local asphalt streets and minor collector roadways, respectively. If a geogrid reinforced section is desired, it should consist of 3 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of base course, and a layer of Tensar TX7, BX1200, or Mirafi RS380i geosynthetic, or approved equivalent, at the subgrade and base course interface. Non-woven filter fabric, Mirafi 140N, or approved equivalent, should be placed between the subgrade and TX7 or BX1200 geosynthetic reinforcement. Filter fabric is not required with RS380i geosynthetic.  This geotechnical evaluation was prepared based on preliminary plans that were made available at the time of exploration. The geotechnical engineer must be informed of future changes to the site layout, proposed structure locations/layout, and/or loading criteria that differ from the assumptions stated in this report. Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. If we are not retained to provide required construction observation and materials testing services, we cannot be responsible for soil engineering Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  related construction errors or omissions. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The report section titled 9.0 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 1 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES To complete this geotechnical evaluation, ALLWEST accomplished the following scope of services: 1) Performed a field evaluation by observing the drilling of ten borings throughout the project site. Subsurface conditions observed in the borings were described and visually classified, and the subsurface profiles were logged. 2) Performed laboratory tests on soil samples to assess the appropriate engineering soil properties and characteristics for the proposed development. 3) Performed engineering analyses and prepared recommendations to assist project planning, design, and construction. Services were provided in general accordance with ALLWEST’s proposal 722-090P dated November 18, 2022. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time of this report, the proposed project will consist of the development of 110.5 acres of vacant property into a subdivision containing a variety of residential units. Conceptual land- use plan drawings indicate approximately 63 acres will be dedicated to cottage units. A total of 378 units, 159 of which will be single-family, are proposed. Buildings throughout the development are anticipated to consist of a mixture of single-story structures constructed with wood or light-gauge metal framing. Maximum column dead loads are anticipated to be on the order of 25 kips or less. Wall loads along the perimeter are expected to be on the order of 3 kips per linear foot or less. If the proposed design or loads vary from those stated, ALLWEST should be notified to review the recommendations herein. A network of roadways will also be constructed throughout the development serving the various lots. Preliminary anticipated traffic conditions were not available to ALLWEST at the time the report was prepared. However, based on the type of development proposed, a mixture of heavy commercial traffic and light passenger car traffic is anticipated. Based on project information received from the design team, it is ALLWEST’s understanding that stormwater will be managed on-site. Site grading plans were not provided to ALLWEST at the time of report preparation, but it is assumed that cut on the order of two feet is anticipated for construction of the single-story structures and associated foundations. Fill above existing grades is anticipated to be two feet or less to match surrounding site contours and to provide positive drainage away from the new structures. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 2 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  3.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES To complete this evaluation, ALLWEST reviewed soil and geologic literature for the project area. Subsurface conditions were evaluated at the site by drilling ten borings at the project site between November 28 and December 1, 2022. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem, continuous-flight augers. Approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure A-2, Boring Location Map in Appendix A. Prior to mobilization, Montana 811 was contacted to request the location and clearance of public underground utilities. Review of the site was also performed to determine possible access limitations to proposed exploration locations prior to excavation. Samples of the subsurface materials were collected as follows:  Split spoon samplers having an outside diameter of 2 inches (standard split spoon) were driven into the various subsurface materials from the bottom of a borehole using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches (ASTM International (ASTM) Method D1586). The number of blows required for the sampler to penetrate each 6-inch increment to a total depth of up to 18 inches is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 6-inch increments of penetration is termed the "standard penetration resistance" or "N-value". In cases where 50 blows are insufficient to advance through a 6-inch interval, the penetration after 50 blows is recorded and the test concluded. The N-value provides an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsurface materials.  Relatively undisturbed subsurface samples of fine-grained soils were obtained from select locations by hydraulically pushing 3-inch outside diameter thin-walled Shelby tube samplers in borings.  Disturbed grab and bulk samples representative of soil conditions from select locations were obtained from hollow-stem auger cuttings returned to the surface. Subsurface conditions observed in the borings were visually described and classified in general accordance with ASTM D2488 and the subsurface profiles were logged by an ALLWEST geotechnical engineer. Detailed descriptions of the soil observed in the borings are presented on the boring logs found in Appendix B of this report. The descriptive soil terms used on the boring logs, and in this report, can be referenced by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A summary of the USCS is included in Appendix B. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The project site is a vacant parcel currently used for agricultural purposes. Existing site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping toward the south. There is approximately 10 feet of elevation difference across the site. The property is bordered by Tronstad Road to the south, and vacant land and limited residential properties in the other directions. U.S. Highway 93 is less than ½-mile west of the subject property. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 3 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  4.1 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The site is in an area mapped as Quaternary glacial silt deposits (Qgs) by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG). Based on the mapping and previous experience at nearby project sites, soil and geologic conditions in the site vicinity were expected to consist of layers of silty and sandy alluvial soils overlain by glacial lakebed clay deposits, ultimately over glacial till at depth. The natural soils observed in the borings were generally consistent with the MBMG geologic mapping and assumptions made by ALLWEST. 4.2 SEISMICITY ALLWEST anticipates the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) will be used as the basis for design of the proposed structures as part of this project. Based on laboratory testing results, subsurface information, and knowledge of the local geology, the natural soils at the site can be characterized as Site Class E for seismic design, in accordance with the previously referenced standard. Soils characterized as Site Class E have a generally stiff relative consistency, with average standard penetration resistance values of less than 15 blows per foot in the upper 100 feet. These blow counts correlate to average undrained shear strengths of less than 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The following seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed structures: Parameter Value Description Latitude 48.277572° Project site geographic position Longitude -114.321282° Project site geographic position Seismic Site Class E Seismic Design Site Classification Risk Category II Seismic design risk category SS 0.68 MCER ground motion (period = 0.2s) S1 0.18 MCER ground motion (period = 1.0s) SDS 0.65 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA SD1 0.47 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA PGAM 0.35 Site modified peak ground acceleration 4.2.1 Liquefaction The subject property is situated near several faults (Mission and Swan Faults) and is considered to be in a relatively high seismic risk zone. Various locales throughout the Kalispell and Flathead River Valley regions have subsurface conditions which can potentially exhibit liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when certain soils (generally loose clean sand) lose strength in response to an applied stress such as shaking during a seismic event (most often observed in saturated, loose, sandy soils). Stress such as that applied during a seismic event causes an increase in porewater pressure within the soil which can exceed the contact stresses between individual soil particles. Loss of soil structure from such forces cause the soil to lose strength and behave similarly to liquid. This causes a temporary reduction in soil bearing capacity, and varying degrees of settlement can occur. Subsurface conditions observed at the project site generally consisted of various interlayers of sandy, silty, and clayey glacial sediment to the maximum depth explored, approximately 40.5 feet. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 4 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  Screening level liquefaction triggering analysis was completed for this project site. The liquefaction analysis was performed using settlement and liquefaction estimation software Settle 3D developed by RocScience, Inc. As it relates to liquefaction, Settle3D uses multiple industry recognized methods of calculating the factor of safety associated with liquefaction resistance, probability of liquefaction, and the associated settlement and lateral displacement based on input parameters required for those calculations. Based on requirements of the current building code, the site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) was determined to be 0.35 (using a 2,475-year return period) and was used for this analysis. Additionally, an earthquake magnitude of 6.0 was used for analysis based on published geologic sources and previous experience for projects in this region. Results of the screening level liquefaction analysis indicate potential differential vertical settlements on the order of 2 inches when subject to the previously described seismic ground motion. Based on published geologic information, soils observed in the explorations, and laboratory testing results, the probability of liquefaction occurring is estimated to be low. If required based on settlement tolerances of specific structures for an extreme event such as this, effects of relatively low magnitudes of potential liquefaction induced settlements on structures such as those determined for this project are often dampened through the use of strategic structural elements and/or relatively rigid foundation systems which can tolerate such magnitude of movement. Recommendations for spread footing and concrete mat foundations to support the proposed structures are presented herein. If the predicted magnitude of potential liquefaction induced differential settlements (approximately 2 inches) are not acceptable to the design team, alternative foundation support will be necessary. Rammed aggregate piers are a suitable and typically economic option to support spread footing foundations if required. A specialty geotechnical contractor such as Geopier Foundation Company typically provides comprehensive design for such elements. The project structural engineer should determine the need for such elements, if any. ALLWEST can provide supplementary foundation recommendations for rammed aggregate piers or other suitable alternatives, if necessary. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General characterization of the subsurface profile observed follows, grouping soils with similar physical and engineering properties. The boring logs should be referenced for more detailed descriptions of the soil types and their estimated depths. It should be noted that depths shown as boundaries between various strata on boring logs are approximate. Transitions between soil types/layers may be gradual. In addition, subsurface conditions may vary between exploration locations from those observed at discrete boring locations. Such changes in conditions would not be apparent until construction. If subsurface conditions deviate from those observed in the borings and test pits, construction timing, plans, and costs may change. The general subsurface soil profile observed in the borings consisted of a thin layer of topsoil covering various interlayers of glacial sediment to the maximum depth explored, approximately 40.5 feet. The glacial sediment mostly consisted of silty sand, sandy silt, and lean clay; however, layers of silty clay and silt were also observed at various locations and depths. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 5 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  5.1 TOPSOIL Topsoil was observed from the surface to depths on the order of 4 to 6 inches in the borings. 5.2 SAND Silty sand was encountered in all the borings at various depth intervals except BH-04 and BH-06. The silty sand was fine- to medium-grained and generally subangular. Field blow counts (uncorrected N values) recorded in the silty sand ranged from 1 to 26 blows per foot, indicating a very loose to medium dense relative density. 5.3 SILT At various depth ranges, sandy silt and silt were observed in borings BH-04, BH-05, BH-06, BH-09, and BH-10. The sandy silt and silt were non-plastic to low plasticity, and generally tan to beige. Uncorrected N values generally ranged from 3 to 23 blows per foot in the strata (one value of 33 blows per foot) and are indicative of soft to very stiff soil. 5.4 CLAY Lean clay and silty clay were encountered in borings BH-02, BH-03, BH-05, BH-06, BH-08, and BH-10 at various depths. The clay soils varied in color from tan to beige and were low to medium plasticity. Uncorrected N values of 0 (weight of hammer) to 12 blows per foot were recorded in the clay soils, indicating a very soft to stiff relative consistency. 5.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS At the time of drilling , groundwater was observed at depths ranging from 10 to 22.5 feet below existing grades in all the borings except BH-01 where no groundwater was observed. Changes in precipitation, irrigation, construction, or other factors may impact depth to groundwater and surface water flow on the property and therefore, conditions may be different during construction. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ALLWEST performed laboratory testing to supplement field classifications and to assess the appropriate soil engineering properties for use in design of the proposed structures. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 6 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  The laboratory testing program conducted for this evaluation included the following tests: Test Performed: Information Acquired: Natural Water Content (ASTM D2216) Water content representative of soil conditions at the time and location samples were collected Particle-size Distribution (ASTM D6913) Size and distribution of soil particles (i.e., gravel, sand, and silt/clay) of a particular sample Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) Effects of varying water content on the consistency of fine-grained soils present in a particular sample Moisture-Density Relationship (ASTM D698) Relationship between the laboratory maximum dry density and corresponding water content of a soil for a particular compaction effort California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1883) The ability of a soil to support a particular pavement section subjected to known traffic loading Consolidation / Swell (ASTM D4546) The amount a soil sample compresses or swells with loading and the influence of wetting on its behavior Chemical Analysis (ASTM D4972, G187, C1580) The potential of a soil to corrode metal or concrete used in construction Laboratory test results are presented and summarized in Appendix C. Some of the laboratory testing results are discussed in detail below. 6.1 MOISTURE CONTENT Results of natural water content testing of representative samples obtained at the time of drilling indicates the near surface subsurface materials fluctuate in moisture throughout the development area. Natural water contents indicate the materials vary from being slightly below to well above the presumed optimum moisture content for compaction (at the time of drilling). 6.2 CLASSIFICATION Gradation analyses in conjunction with Atterberg limits testing were performed on representative samples from borings BH-02 (7.5 to 20.5 feet and 24 to 30.5 feet), BH-03 (2 to 5 feet and 29 to 40.5 feet), BH-06 (8 to 10 feet and 14 to 20.5 feet), BH-08 (8 to 10 feet), and BH-10 (9 to 20.5 feet). Soil classifications of lean clay, silty sand, silt, and silty clay were determined by the testing of each sample. Graphical results of the laboratory testing are presented in Figures C-1 through C-8 in Appendix C. 6.3 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Moisture-density relationship testing was performed on a disturbed bulk sample of representative material obtained from boring BH-03 (2 to 5 feet) in accordance with ASTM D698 (standard Proctor). Through a series of controlled trials using a variety of moisture contents, a moisture-density curve was established for the subject soil. Results of the testing indicate a maximum dry density of approximately 108 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) at an optimum moisture content of 13.4 percent for the sample tested (Figure C-9, Appendix C). Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 7 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  6.4 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D1883 on a disturbed bulk samples of representative material obtained from boring BH-03 (2 to 5 feet). Testing determined a CBR value of 11.1 percent when compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (Figure C-10, Appendix C). CBR strengths in this range are considered a poor to medium strength subgrade for supporting pavements under controlled placement conditions. 6.5 CONSOLIDATION / SWELL One-dimensional consolidation/swell testing was performed on representative Shelby tube samples of material collected from borings BH-06 (8 to 10 feet) and BH-08 (8 to 10 feet). The consolidation testing performed indicates the material is slightly to moderately compressible, exhibiting strains on the order of 1.8 to 3.5 percent upon loading to 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Graphical results of the testing are presented on Figures C-11 and C-12 in Appendix C. 6.6 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Factors which contribute to soil corrosion of buried metal structures include soil resistivity, pH, presence of water and oxygen, and soluble salts. Soil minimum resistivity and pH are typically regarded as the primary indicators of soil corrosion potential. In general, fine-grained soils (silt and clay) have lower resistivity and present a greater potential for corrosion. With an increase in soil moisture content, resistivity generally decreases, and corrosion potential generally increases. Soils with low pH and relatively high resistivity are also corrosive. Generalized effects of soil resistivity and pH with respect to corrosion potential are summarized in the following table, based on information available from the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE). Parameter Soil Corrosivity Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) >20,000 10,000 – 20,000 5,000 – 10,000 3,000 – 5,000 1,000 – 3,000 <1,000 Essentially Non-corrosive Mildly corrosive Moderately corrosive Corrosive Highly Corrosive Extremely Corrosive Soil pH <5.5 5.5 – 6.5 6.5 – 7.5 >7.5 Extremely corrosive Moderately corrosive Neutral None (alkaline) The American Concrete Institute Standard 318 (ACI 318) presents durability requirements for concrete based on the exposure category and class of the structure, dependent on the ground and weather situation of the area. Sulfate attack (exposure category S) is one of the most important factors that influences the long-term durability of concrete structures when exposed to potentially corrosive environments such as soil or groundwater. The exposure class Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 8 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  influences proportion of mixture, type of cement and cementitious materials, and percentage of chemical admixtures like air-entrainment admixture. Durability requirements for concrete in contact with water or soil that contains sulfate ions which can solute in water are summarized in the following table, based on information available from ACI 318. The degree of severity of concrete exposure to sulfate attack constitute the four classes presented. Exposure Class Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO42-) in Soil (percent by mass) Maximum Water/Cement Ratio ASTM C150 Cement Type S0 SO42- < 0.10 N/A No type restriction S1 0.10 ≤ SO42- < 0.20 0.50 II S2 0.20 ≤ SO42- < 2.00 0.45 V S3 SO42- > 2.00 0.45 V plus pozzolan or slag Chemical analyses, including pH, resistivity, and water-soluble sulfate content testing, was performed using samples of representative material from borings BH-02 and BH-06. Results of the testing are summarized in the following table. Boring Depth (feet) pH Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Conductivity (mmhos/cm) Soluble Sulfate Content (%) BH-02 7.5 – 20.5 8.7 5,400 0.2 <0.01 BH-06 4 – 5.5 8.4 8,420 0.1 <0.01 Results of resistivity testing suggest these on-site soils have the potential to exhibit moderately corrosive behavior to buried metal in contact with them. A licensed engineer experienced with corrosion should be consulted to determine appropriate protection measures. Where possible, it is recommended that non-corrosive materials be used in lieu of metal conduits, and ductile iron pipe (if used) be encased with polyethylene tubing. Water-soluble sulfate content testing results indicate a low exposure to sulfate attack in normal strength concrete exposed to these materials. Based on testing results, Exposure Category S0 (ACI 318) may be specified for concrete in direct contact with on-site soils. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are presented to assist in planning and design of the proposed structures and improvements. Recommendations are based on ALLWEST’s understanding of the proposed construction, conditions observed in the borings, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. If the construction scope changes, or if conditions are encountered during construction which are different than those described in this report, ALLWEST should be notified so the recommendations herein can be reviewed and revisions can be provided, if necessary. Additionally, ALLWEST should be given the opportunity to review plans and specifications to determine whether the recommendations presented in this report were properly incorporated as intended. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 9 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  7.1 SITE GRADING The following recommendations are provided for site grading considerations. 7.1.1 Clearing and Stripping Prior to placement of fill, the site should be stripped of organics, debris, and other deleterious material in the construction footprint. The site consists of an agricultural field currently planted with hay. Based on observations of subsurface conditions in the borings and general site reconnaissance, the stripping depth for removal of topsoil within the structure and pavement envelops is estimated to be on the order of 6 inches. Removed materials should be replaced with compacted granular structural fill to achieve design elevations, if required. Where feasible, extend removal of organics, and other debris or deleterious material a minimum of five feet beyond the perimeter of the building footprints. 7.1.2 Excavation According to preliminary information provided by the project design team, excavation depths on the order of 2 feet or less are anticipated for construction of the proposed buildings and associated foundations. Based on conditions observed in the borings, it is anticipated that excavation of the on-site soil can be achieved with typical heavy-duty excavation equipment. Unsupported vertical slopes or cuts deeper than 4 feet are not recommended if worker access is necessary. Cuts should be adequately sloped, shored, or supported to prevent injury to personnel from local sloughing and spalling. In consideration of the sandy soils observed in the borings, caving and sloughing should be anticipated if cuts of significant depth are left unsupported or inadequately sloped. Excavations should conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Regarding trench wall support, the site soil is considered Type C soil according to OSHA guidelines and therefore should not exceed a 1.5H:1V temporary slope. Dewatering may be required for construction of sewer lines or other utilities depending on the season and depths required for construction of the proposed utilities. Dewatering means and methods will be the responsibility of the selected earthwork contractor. As a minimum, dewatering should extend at least 2 feet below the bottoms of excavations. 7.1.3 Subgrade Preparation ALLWEST defines the subgrade as the native soil exposed at the base of excavation prior to placement of fill or concrete. The subgrade requires an evaluation by the geotechnical engineer-of-record or staff under their supervision to confirm the site conditions are consistent with those observed during our geotechnical evaluation. Soils at subgrade elevations are anticipated to vary across the site from clayey and silty fine-grained soils to fine- to medium-grained silty sand. The fine-grained soils present at various locations throughout the development site are susceptible to pumping and rutting if subjected to significant and repeated traffic by rubber tire construction equipment. It is recommended tracked construction equipment be used to traffic the site and rubber tire equipment be limited to haul routes. In the event the exposed subgrade becomes unstable, yielding, or unable to be compacted due to high moisture conditions or construction traffic, the materials should be removed to a Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 10 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  sufficient depth to develop stable subgrade soils that can be compacted to the minimum recommended levels. The severity of construction problems will be dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade soils. Prior to construction of footings, slabs, pavements, or placement of fill, the exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (standard Proctor). Moisture conditioning of the subgrade surface may involve wetting or drying of the soil to help facilitate compaction. Please refer to the in-situ moisture content laboratory test results for an estimation of existing soil-moisture conditions (at the time of exploration). When the desired pavement subgrade elevations are achieved, place a non-woven filter fabric (i.e., Mirafi 140N or similar) over the entire pavement subgrade surface to help reduce the upward migration of fines into the structural base course layer. If a ‘reinforced section’ is selected, place Tensar TX7 triaxial geogrid, BX1200 biaxial geogrid, or Mirafi RS380i, or approved equivalent, at the subgrade/base course interface above non-woven filter fabric. Filter fabric is not required if Mirafi RS380i geosynthetic is used. Non-woven geotextile and geosynthetic reinforcement should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Pavement and exterior slab subgrades should be sloped to promote runoff and reduce the potential for ponding of water on the subgrade surface. Proper grading of pavement subgrades is critical to their long-term performance. Any areas of soft or saturated subgrade soils which exhibit pumping or significant deflection should be over-excavated to firm, non-yielding soil and replaced with import granular structural fill placed and compacted as described in the Fill Placement & Compaction section. Weather conditions should be given careful attention during subgrade preparation to prevent excess moisture from collecting on or penetrating and possibly saturating the subgrade before and after compaction. It is recommended that the subgrade be temporarily sloped to provide drainage to a low area of the excavation and any excess water pumped from the excavation. Such collection and discharge must be in compliance with the Contractor’s site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Should portions of the subgrade become excessively saturated, those areas should be sufficiently excavated, replaced with moisture conditioned soil, and properly compacted. 7.1.4 Materials 7.1.4.1 On-site Soil The subgrade soils present throughout the project site are not suitable for re-use as structural fill beneath foundations or slabs but may be used for backfilling of exterior foundation walls, trench backfill in utility trenches, and general site grading fill provided deleterious materials are removed, and the material is placed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Fill Placement and Compaction section. In addition, on-site soils used for such purposes should be thoroughly mixed prior to placement to achieve a uniform texture. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 11 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  7.1.4.2 Import Soil Import soil, where required should be free of organics, debris, and other deleterious material and meet the recommendations in the following table. Import materials should approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to delivery to the site. Fill Type Recommendations Import Granular Structural Fill1,2 Sieve Percent Passing 3-inch 100 ¾-inch 70 – 100 No. 40 10 – 20 No. 200 0 – 15 1 Soils with more than 30% retained on the ¾-inch sieve are considered ‘oversized’ and may require method-based compaction methods. 2 Material should be non-plastic 7.1.4.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Fill should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate for the compaction equipment used. Typically, six to eight-inch loose lifts are appropriate for typical rubber tire and steel drum compaction equipment. Lift thicknesses should be reduced to a maximum of four inches for hand operated compaction equipment. Fill should be moisture conditioned to within two percentage points of the optimum moisture content prior to placement to facilitate compaction. Non-expansive low-permeability fill, however, should be moisture conditioned to two percentage points over the optimum moisture content to facilitate desired effects of the material. Fill placed for on-site improvements and in structural areas should be compacted to the following percentages of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (standard Proctor). Fill Area Compaction (%) ASTM D698 Subgrade 95 Site Grading 95 Foundations / Slabs / Wall Backfill 98 Utility Trench Backfill 95 Base Course 95 7.1.5 Wet Weather Construction Due to the climatic effects in this region during late fall, winter, and spring (generally wet conditions), it is recommended that construction (especially site grading) take place during the summer and early fall season, if possible. If construction occurs during or immediately after excessive precipitation, it may be necessary to over-excavate and replace wet subgrade soil which might otherwise be suitable. If construction is undertaken in wet periods of the year, it will be important to slope the ground surface to provide drainage away from construction. In addition, groundwater levels will likely be higher during wet periods of the year. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 12 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  7.1.6 Cold Weather Construction Foundations should be embedded adequately to protect against frost action as recommended in the Foundation Recommendations section of this report. Removal of frost susceptible soil within the frost-depth zone (approximately 42 inches) below concrete flatwork (walkways, entryway pads, etc.) is recommended to help reduce the potential detrimental effects of frost heave. If site grading and construction are anticipated during cold weather, proper winter construction practices should be observed. Snow and ice should be removed from excavated and fill areas prior to additional earthwork or construction. Structural portions of the construction should not be placed on frozen ground; nor should the supporting soils for buildings be permitted to freeze during or after construction. Frozen soils should not be used as fill. 7.2 FOUNDATIONS Based on the anticipated maximum foundation column loads of 25 kips and wall loads of up to 3 kips per linear foot, conventional spread footings bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of compacted imported granular structural fill, extending to a properly prepared subgrade, is recommended. Alternatively, recommendations for a concrete mat foundation system are provided herein should the design team desire a more rigid foundation system, which can better resist detrimental effects to structures should a severe seismic event inducing liquefaction occur. The subgrade should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report. 7.2.1 Spread Footings The following recommendations are provided for use in design and construction of a conventional spread footing foundation system for the proposed structures based on the subsurface conditions observed and the stated assumptions.  Footings may be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of imported granular structural fill extending to a properly prepared subgrade, placed and compacted as recommended herein.  Footings supported on a minimum of 12 inches of granular structural fill underlain by a properly prepared subgrade may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), provided estimated settlements as outlined herein are acceptable. This allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third to account for short term wind and seismic loads.  Footings should be embedded a minimum of 42 inches below the lowest adjacent grade to provide protection against frost action.  Unless specified by the project engineer or governing codes requiring an increased width, continuous footings should be a minimum of 18 inches in width and column footings should be a minimum of 24 inches in width.  An ultimate value for coefficient of friction between cast-in-place concrete and properly compacted import granular structural fill of 0.50 may be used for design. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 13 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY   Foundation bearing surfaces should be free of loose soil and debris.  Total settlement estimated for spread footing foundations designed and constructed as recommended herein will be 1-inch or less. Differential settlement is estimated to be ½-inch or less in a 30-foot span. Potential differential settlement, due to liquefaction, should it occur, is estimated to be on the order of 2 inches. This would be in addition to the settlement caused by foundation loads.  A permanent foundation drainage system should be designed and constructed around the perimeters of the proposed structures. The drainage system should consist of a four-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC or high-density polyethylene (HDPE), perforated pipe surrounded with a free draining aggregate. The pipe should be located at the lowest elevation of the footing trench excavation such that gravity drainage may be achieved. Water collected in the drains should be discharged down-gradient of the structures. If the pipe cannot be daylighted and maintain positive drainage due to site gradient, a drywell should be considered.  Portland cement type used should be selected by the project structural engineer so that the desired performance is achieved. No soil-related modifications to typical concrete mix designs used in this locale are recommended herein.  Backfill placed adjacent to foundation walls should be placed uniformly on both sides of the foundation walls to reduce displacement of the foundation walls.  A geotechnical engineer from ALLWEST or their designated representative should observe the subgrade below foundation excavations prior to the placement of fill, concrete forms, and reinforcing steel to ensure the intent of the design criteria presented herein is met. 7.2.2 Concrete Mat Foundation The following recommendations are provided for use in design and construction of a concrete mat foundation system as an alternative support mechanism for the proposed structures based on the subsurface conditions observed and the stated assumptions.  Concrete mat foundations may be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of imported granular structural fill extending to a properly prepared subgrade, placed and compacted as recommended herein.  Concrete mat foundations supported on a minimum of 12 inches of granular structural fill underlain by a properly prepared subgrade may be designed for an allowable contact pressure of 1,000 psf, provided estimated settlements as outlined herein are acceptable. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design.  The mat foundation should be founded below frost depth or include turn down edges or a perimeter curtain wall for frost protection. Depth of frost protection should be a minimum of 42 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 14 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY   An ultimate value for coefficient of friction between cast-in-place concrete and natural sand subgrade or import granular structural fill of 0.45 may be used for design.  Foundation bearing surfaces should be free of loose soil and debris.  A permanent foundation drainage system should be designed and constructed around the perimeters of the proposed structures. The drainage system should consist of a four-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC or high-density polyethylene (HDPE), perforated pipe surrounded with a free draining aggregate. The pipe should be located at the lowest elevation of the foundation excavation such that gravity drainage may be achieved. Water collected in the drains should be discharged down-gradient of the structures. If the pipe cannot be daylighted and maintain positive drainage due to site gradient, a drywell should be considered.  Total settlement estimated for mat foundations designed and constructed as recommended herein will be 1-inch or less. Differential settlement is estimated to be ½-inch or less in a 30-foot span. Potential differential settlement, due to liquefaction, should it occur, is estimated to be on the order of 2 inches. This would be in addition to the settlement caused by foundation loads.  Portland cement type used should be selected by the project structural engineer so that the desired performance is achieved. No soil-related modifications to typical concrete mix designs used in this locale are recommended herein.  A geotechnical engineer from ALLWEST or their designated representative should observe the subgrade below foundation excavations prior to the placement of any granular structural fill, concrete forms, and reinforcing steel to ensure the intent of the design criteria presented herein is met. 7.3 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE Concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on a properly prepared subgrade, prepared as previously recommended herein. A minimum of 6 inches of crushed base course should be placed immediately below slabs. Base course should be compacted as recommended in the Fill Placement and Compaction section of this report. Portland cement type used in concrete slabs should be selected by the project structural engineer so that the desired performance is achieved. No soil-related modifications to typical concrete mix designs used in this locale are recommended herein. A vapor retarder is recommended beneath the slab-on-grade floor if moisture sensitive floor coverings and/or adhesives are used. If a vapor retarder is used, a 15-mil, puncture-resistant proprietary product such as Stego Wrap, or an approved equivalent that is classified as a Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E1745 is recommended. Overlap lengths and the appropriate tape used to seal the laps should be in accordance with the vapor retarder manufacturer’s recommendations. To help avoid puncturing the vapor retarder, a thin sand layer placed over the crushed gravel is recommended. When conditions warrant the use of a Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 15 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. 7.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Below grade building walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressures project should be calculated using the following equivalent fluid pressures, provided for various on-site and import materials anticipated for use on the project: Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressures Import Granular Structural Fill (pcf) On-site Silty Sand (pcf) On-site Clay (pcf) At-rest 55 60 70 Active 35 40 55 Passive 310 275 225 The equivalent fluid pressures presented above are for horizontal backfill without surcharge loading. The active and at-rest pressures should be increased by an equivalent fluid weight of 15 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and the passive pressure should be reduced by 15 pcf for seismic design. The dynamic component of the active pressure acts at a height of approximately 0.6 times the height of the wall. The above equivalent fluid pressure values do not account for hydrostatic forces. Walls that are braced in a manner that does not allow any rotational movement (rigid) should be designed using the given “at-rest” equivalent fluid pressure. 7.5 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE The grading plan should include slopes such that storm water run-off is directed away from the building and pavement areas to a stormwater management system. The ground surface adjacent to foundations should be sloped a minimum of five percent within 10 feet of the building. If the adjoining ground surface consists of hardscapes, it may be sloped a minimum of two percent in the first 10 feet. Water should not be allowed to infiltrate or pond adjacent to foundations. Landscaping which requires watering is discouraged adjacent to structures due to the potential to introduce water into the subgrade soils by the irrigation system. Such introduction of water could result in greater movement of foundations than those discussed herein. 7.6 PAVEMENT Based on the subsurface conditions observed in the borings, it is anticipated that the pavement subgrade will vary across the development, consisting of clay, silt, or silty sand depending on exact locale within the development. CBR testing was performed on a representative sample of the silty sand subgrade soil and determined a CBR value of 11.1 percent. The clayey subgrade soils which underlie sporadic zones throughout the development are presumed to be the limiting subgrade soil, however. A CBR of 3 percent was assumed for the clayey soils and used for pavement design purposes. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 16 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  Recommended pavement sections for the project are based on the following assumptions. Criteria Assumed Value Pavement Life 20 years Subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) 3% Reliability 85% Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.0 7.6.1 Roadways Roadway loading for the proposed residential street sections for this project is estimated based on the assumption that traffic loading conditions totaling 50,000 and 100,000 equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) or less will be required for local asphalt streets and minor collector streets, respectively, for the assumed pavement design life (20 years). The pavement sections presented in the following table are recommended for the proposed roadway sections for this project based on assumed ESAL values. Roadway Type Section Type AC1 (in) CBC2 (in) Total (in) Local Asphalt Street Unreinforced 3 9 12 Reinforced with Geogrid 3 6 9 Minor Collector Steet Unreinforced 3 12 15 Reinforced with Geogrid 3 6 9 1AC = Asphalt Concrete 2CBC = Crushed Base Course Crushed base course meeting the requirements of MPWSS section 02235 gradation for crushed base course should be specified for use. It is recommended the asphaltic concrete surface be compacted per MPWSS requirements. Crack maintenance on asphalt pavement should be performed at a minimum of every three years, or immediately when cracking is evident. Crack sealing will help reduce surface water infiltration into the underlying clay soils. A shortened pavement life will result from an improper or inadequate maintenance program. In addition, a shortened pavement life is expected in areas of expansive clays. 7.7 OWNER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES Property owners must accept the responsibility for maintaining the site grading, drainage, monitoring utility connections, and have a defined schedule for verifying and making necessary repairs as necessary to maintain the overall as designed positive site grading to ensure long term performance of the foundations as defined herein. The property owner shall not make modifications to site grading that compromises the as-designed positive surface drainage. In addition, landscaping and irrigation must be designed, installed, and maintained so as to not impact the overall site grading and/or become a source of water to the site soils which could result in movement of the support structures, pavement, or slabs. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Page 17 Kalispell, Montana GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTION AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY  8.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED SERVICES ALLWEST should be retained to provide construction materials testing and observation to verify the soil and geologic conditions and the report recommendations are incorporated into the actual construction. The design engineer-of-record should determine applicable testing and special inspection requirements in accordance with the governing code documents. If ALLWEST is not retained to provide required construction observation and materials testing services, ALLWEST cannot be responsible for soil engineering related construction errors or omissions. 9.0 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to assist the planning and design for the proposed Tronstad Road Development project located at Tronstad Road and Sirucek Lane Intersection in Kalispell, Montana. The evaluation was provided based on preliminary plans that were made available at the time of exploration. The geotechnical engineer must be informed of significant changes to the building layout and/or loading criteria that differ from the assumptions stated in this report. Reliance by any other party is prohibited without the written authorization of ALLWEST. Services consist of professional opinions and conclusions made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the local area at the time this report was prepared. This acknowledgement is in lieu of all warranties, express or implied. Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- phase observations. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana Appendix A Vicinity Map (Figure A-1) Boring Location Map (Figure A-2) 2920 MAINTE N A N C E SHED FIGURE A-2: BORING LOCATION MAP PROJECT: 722-090G - Tronstad Road Development LOCATION: Kalispell, Montana CLIENT NAME: Elcan & Associates, Inc. DATE: January 2023 2720 Palmer St Unit AMissoula, Montana 59808(406) 206-5911www.allwesttesting.com Approximate Boring Location Google Earth Imagery, 2022 Site Map Courtesy of Elcan & Associates, Inc. BH-03 BH-06 BH-08BH-07 BH-04 BH-05 BH-02BH-01 BH-09 BH-10 Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana Appendix B Boring Logs Unified Soil Classification System 11-11-15 (14" = 78%) 2-1-1(12" = 67%) 5-8-9(13" = 72%) 9-9-10(12" = 67%) 5-9-9(14" = 78%) 5-9-9 (14" = 78%) 4-4-5(9" = 50%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), brown, slightly moist, fine- tomedium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), brown to tan, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, very loose to medium dense. Grab sample: 6'-8' Grab sample: 17'-18' Boring terminated at 20.5'. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater not observed. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/28/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-01 Sheet 1 of 1NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' SA M P L E R 11/28/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) Grab Sample BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'46.632" (48.27962°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'5.7288" (-114.318258°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION NE 11-8-5 (15" = 83%) 3-3-7(12" = 67%) 4-4-5(12" = 67%) 2-3-5(18" = 100%) 2-4-5(15" = 83%) 2-2-3 (16" = 89%) 1-2-2(18" = 100%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), brown, slightly moist to wet, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, medium dense. Lean CLAY (CL), tan to beige, slightly moist to wet, low plasticity, medium stiff to stiff. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 12/1/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-02 Sheet 1 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 30.5' SA M P L E R 12/1/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'46.5744" (48.279604°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'5.7288" (-114.318258°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 22.5' 2-3-5(17" = 94%) 1-1-3 (18" = 100%) Silty SAND (SM), tan to beige, slightly moist to wet, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, loose. Boring terminated at 30.5'.Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 22.5'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 12/1/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-02 Sheet 2 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 23.0 25.3 27.6 29.9 32.2 34.5 36.8 39.1 41.4 43.7 46.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 30.5' SA M P L E R 12/1/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'46.5744" (48.279604°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'5.7288" (-114.318258°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 22.5' 17-7-4 (14" = 78%) 2-3-3(12" = 67%) 5-4-6(11" = 61%) 4-4-4(10" = 56%) 3-3-4(11" = 61%) 1-2-1 (10" = 56%) 1-1-0(8" = 44%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), tan to brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, medium dense. Silty SAND (SM), tan to brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, very loose to loose. Bulk sample: 2'-5' Shelby tube: 15.5'-17.5' 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/28/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-03 Sheet 1 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 40.5' SA M P L E R 11/28/2022 3" Shelby Tube BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'40.3284" (48.277869°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'22.5048" (-114.322918°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 14.8' 1-1-1(10" = 56%) 1-0-1 (18" = 100%) 1-0-2(18" = 100%) Lean CLAY (CL), grey to tan, wet, medium to high plasticity,very soft. Boring terminated at 40.5'.Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 14.8'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/28/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-03 Sheet 2 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 23.0 25.3 27.6 29.9 32.2 34.5 36.8 39.1 41.4 43.7 46.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 40.5' SA M P L E R 11/28/2022 3" Shelby Tube BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'40.3284" (48.277869°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'22.5048" (-114.322918°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 14.8' 14-8-6 (10" = 56%) 5-8-7(9" = 50%) 8-10-12(12" = 67%) 4-6-5(13" = 72%) 3-4-4(13" = 72%) 3-3-5 (14" = 78%) 1-1-3(13" = 72%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Sandy SILT (ML), tan to brown, slightly moist to wet, low plasticity, soft to very stiff. Boring terminated at 20.5'. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 14.5'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/29/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-04 Sheet 1 of 1NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' SA M P L E R 11/29/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'40.3932" (48.277887°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'13.2384" (-114.320344°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 14.5' 10-9-9 (18" = 100%) 10-12-11(17" = 94%) 7-6-6(17" = 94%) 4-5-4(15" = 83%) 4-4-5(17" = 94%) 1-2-3 (18" = 100%) 2-4-7(18" = 100%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), dark brown to brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, medium dense. Sandy SILT (ML), tan to beige, slightly moist, low plasticity,stiff to very stiff. Silty CLAY (CL-ML), tan to beige, slightly moist to wet, medium plasticity, medium stiff to stiff. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 12/1/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-05 Sheet 1 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 30.5' SA M P L E R 12/1/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'40.3932" (48.277887°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'3.2772" (-114.317577°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 17.5' 0-2-3(16" = 89%) 1-1-0 (14" = 78%) Silty SAND (SM), tan to brown, wet, fine- tomedium-grained, subangular, very loose to loose. Boring terminated at 30.5'.Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 17.5'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 12/1/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-05 Sheet 2 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 23.0 25.3 27.6 29.9 32.2 34.5 36.8 39.1 41.4 43.7 46.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 30.5' SA M P L E R 12/1/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'40.3932" (48.277887°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'3.2772" (-114.317577°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 17.5' 15-16-17 (13" = 72%) 4-4-3(9" = 50%) 2-1-2(10" = 56%) 1-0-0 (18" = 100%) 1-0-0(18" = 100%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. SILT (ML), dark brown, slightly moist to wet, non-plastic, soft to hard. Shelby tube: 8'-10' Lean CLAY (CL), tan to beige, moist to wet, medium to highplasticity, very soft. Boring terminated at 20.5'. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 10'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/29/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-06 Sheet 1 of 1NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' SA M P L E R 11/29/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) 3" Shelby Tube BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'32.6208" (48.275728°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'22.62" (-114.32295°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 10' 16-15-9 (16" = 89%) 4-5-5(11" = 61%) 3-4-4(12" = 67%) 3-3-4(10" = 56%) 3-3-4(14" = 78%) 1-2-7 (18" = 100%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist to wet, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, loose to medium dense. Approximately 6' of heave observed during samplingattempt at 19'. Boring terminated at 20.5'. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 13.5'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 12/1/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-07 Sheet 1 of 1NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' SA M P L E R 12/1/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'32.6892" (48.275747°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'13.2924" (-114.320359°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 13.5' 10-8-7 (12" = 67%) 7-5-7(9" = 50%) 3-4-4(17" = 94%) 2-3-3(0" = 0%) 0-0-0 (18" = 100%) 3-5-6(14" = 78%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), brown to dark brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, medium dense. Silty CLAY (CL-ML), tan to beige, slightly moist to very moist, low to medium plasticity, soft to stiff. Shelby tube: 8'-10' Lean CLAY (CL), tan to beige, slightly moist to wet, low to medium plasticity, very soft to stiff. Boring terminated at 20.5'. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 20'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/30/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-08 Sheet 1 of 1NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' SA M P L E R 11/30/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) 3" Shelby Tube BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'32.5308" (48.275703°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'3.36" (-114.3176°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 20' 14-7-4 (10" = 56%) 8-4-3(10" = 56%) 3-3-5(8" = 44%) 2-3-5(10" = 56%) 7-10-10(9" = 50%) 4-3-4 (12" = 67%) 3-2-2(11" = 61%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), brown to dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular, loose to medium dense. Sandy SILT (ML), tan to grey, moist to wet, low plasticity, stiff to very stiff. Silty SAND (SM), brown, wet, fine- to medium-grained,subangular, loose. Boring terminated at 20.5'. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 11'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/29/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-09 Sheet 1 of 1NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' SA M P L E R 11/29/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'25.9572" (48.273877°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'19.4808" (-114.322078°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 11' 11-7-4 (16" = 89%) 5-4-6(14" = 78%) 5-3-5(15" = 83%) 3-2-2(12" = 67%) 2-2-3(12" = 67%) 1-1-2 (11" = 61%) 0-0-0(17" = 94%) TOPSOIL, Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, slightly moist, fine-to medium-grained, subangular. Frozen to approximately 1'. Silty SAND (SM), brown to dark brown, slightly moist, fine- to medium-grained, subangular, medium dense. Sandy SILT (ML), tan to beige, slightly moist, low plasticity,medium stiff to stiff. Lean CLAY (CL), tan to beige, slightly moist to wet, low tomedium plasticity, very soft to medium stiff. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/30/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-10 Sheet 1 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 0.0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11.5 13.8 16.1 18.4 20.7 23.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 25.5' SA M P L E R 11/30/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'25.8996" (48.273861°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'7.3416" (-114.318706°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 22' 0-0-2(15" = 83%)Silty SAND (SM), tan to brown, wet, fine- tomedium-grained, subangular, very loose. Boring terminated at 25.5' following approximately 8' ofheave. Backfilled with cuttings.Groundwater observed at 22'. 0 DRILL: Mobile B-61 DE P T H ( f t ) 11/30/2022 PROJECT: 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Automatic 8" Hollow-stem Auger FIELD "N" VALUE AFTER DRILLING AT COMPLETION GR A P H I C L O G DESCRIPTION O'Keefe Drilling 20 40 PLASTIC LIMIT DE P T H ( f t ) 60 RQD (%) RECOVERY (%) 0 100 LOGGER:Bridger Logan Cold, Snowy DATE STARTED: 50 BORING BH-10 Sheet 2 of 2NE NE COMPANY: SA M P L E # DRILLING METHODS: WATER CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMITFIELDBLOWCOUNT (Recovery) DATE FINISHED: 23.0 25.3 27.6 29.9 32.2 34.5 36.8 39.1 41.4 43.7 46.0 Bridger O'Keefe WEATHER: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 WATER LEVELS HAMMER: WHILE DRILLING DRILLER: NOTES: TOTAL DEPTH: 25.5' SA M P L E R 11/30/2022 2" OD Split Spoon (SPT) BORING LOG (US Customary Units) LATITUDE (DEGREES): N 48°16'25.8996" (48.273861°) LONGITUDE (DEGREES): W -114°19'7.3416" (-114.318706°) ALLWEST MISSOULA, MONTANA GEOTECHNICAL SECTION 22' Unified Soil Classification System MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES COARSE GRAINED SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-Graded Gravel, Gravel-Sand Mixtures. GP Poorly-Graded Gravel, Gravel-Sand Mixtures. GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures. GC Clayey Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures. SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well-Graded Sand, Gravelly Sand. SP Poorly-Graded Sand, Gravelly Sand. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty Sand, Sand-Silt Mixtures. SC Clayey Sand, Sand-Clay Mixtures. FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% ML Inorganic Silt, Silty or Clayey Fine Sand. CL Inorganic Clay of Low to Medium Plasticity, Sandy or Silty Clay. OL Organic Silt and Clay of Low Plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50% MH Inorganic Silt, Elastic Silt, Micaceous Silt, Fine Sand or Silt. CH Inorganic Clay of High Plasticity, Fat Clay. OH Organic Clay of Medium to High Plasticity. Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, Muck and Other Highly Organic Soils. Geotechnical Evaluation ALLWEST Project No. 722-090G Tronstad Road Development Kalispell, Montana Appendix C Laboratory Test Results (Figures C-1 through C-12) Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T Tested By: K. Himmelreich Checked By: A. Warren, P.E. Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 0 0 1 99 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-02 Sample Number: S722-0281 Depth: 7.5' - 20.5'Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure Lean CLAY #50 #100 #200 100 100 99 19 28 9 CL A-4(8) Sampled by B. Logan (ALLWEST) Procedure A (entire sample) Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 11/2022 C-1 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T Tested By: K. Himmelreich Checked By: A. Warren. P.E. Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 0 0 58 42 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-02 Sample Number: S722-0281 Depth: 24.0' - 30.5'Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure Silty SAND #40 #50 #100 #200 100 100 76 42 NP NV NP 0.2068 0.1845 0.1066 0.0873 SM A-4(0) Sampled by B. Logan (ALLWEST) Procedure A (entire sample) Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 11/2022 C-2 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T T e s t i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . Tested By: D. Schmitz Checked By: A. Warren 1/16/23 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Silty sand #4 #200 100.0 37.3 NP NP NP 2.4508 1.7604 0.3366 0.1737 SM A-4(0) Moisture content: 5.7% B. Logan sampled 11/28/22 Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-03 Sample Number: S722-0282 Depth: 2-5'Date: Client: Project: Project No: SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 23.4 26.2 37.3 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ i n . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Particle Size Distribution Report Figure C-3 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T Tested By: K. Himmelreich Checked By: A. Warren, P.E. Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 0 0 2 98 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-03 Sample Number: S722-0282 Depth: 29.0' - 40.5'Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure Lean CLAY #50 #100 #200 100 100 98 20 36 16 CL A-6(16) Sampled by B. Logan (ALLWEST) Procedure A (entire sample) Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 11/2022 C-4 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T T e s t i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . Tested By: D. Schmitz Checked By: A. Warren 1/16/23 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Silt #4 #200 100.0 97.4 23 23 NP ML A-4(0) Moisture content: 26.3% B. Logan sampled 11/29/22 Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-06 Sample Number: S722-0285 Depth: 8-10'Date: Client: Project: Project No: SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.1 97.4 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ i n . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Particle Size Distribution Report Figure C-5 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T Tested By: K. Himmelreich Checked By: A. Warren, P.E. Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 0 0 7 93 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-06 Sample Number: S722-0285 Depth: 14.0' - 20.5'Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure Lean CLAY #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 93 20 37 17 CL A-6(16) Sampled by B. Logan (ALLWEST) Procedure A (entire sample) Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 11/2022 C-6 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T T e s t i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . Tested By: D. Schmitz Checked By: A. Warren 1/16/23 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Silty clay #4 #200 100.0 99.0 17 22 5 CL-ML A-4(3) Moisture content: 21.9% B. Logan sampled 11/29/22 Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-08 Sample Number: S722-0287 Depth: 8-10'Date: Client: Project: Project No: SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 99.0 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ i n . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Particle Size Distribution Report Figure C-7 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T Tested By: K. Himmelreich Checked By: A. Warren, P.E. Particle Size Distribution Report PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 0 0 1 99 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ in . ½ in . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: BH-10 Sample Number: S722-0289 Depth: 9.0' - 20.5'Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure Lean CLAY #50 #100 #200 100 99 99 19 29 10 CL A-4(9) Sampled by B. Logan (ALLWEST) Procedure A (entire sample) Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development 722-090G PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= *(no specification provided) 11/2022 C-8 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T T e s t i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . Tested By: L. Warrick Checked By: D. Schmitz Moisture Density Relationship Dr y d e n s i t y , p c f 97.5 100 102.5 105 107.5 110 Water content, % 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.35 Test specification:ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard 2-5'SM A-4(0)- - NP NP 0.0 37.3 Silty sand 722-090G Elcan Associates, Inc. B. Logan sampled 11/28/22 Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI % > % < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Location: BH-03 Sample Number: S722-0282 Maximum dry density = 108.0 pcf Optimum moisture = 13.4 % Tronstad Road Development Figure C-9 BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT ASTM D1883-16 Project No: 722-090G Project: Tronstad Road Development Location: BH-03 Sample Number: S722-0282 Depth: 2-5' Date: 1/16/23 Silty sand Test Description/Remarks: B. Logan sampled 11/28/22 108.0 13.4 NP NPSM Material Description USCS Max. Dens. (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) LL PI Molded Density (pcf) Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) Soaked Density (pcf) Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) CBR (%) 0.10 in. 0.20 in. Linearity Correction (in.) Surcharge (lbs.) Max. Swell (%) 1 101.2 93.7 13.7 101.1 93.6 19.2 9.0 8.2 0.000 10 0.2 2 106.1 98.2 13.7 105.9 98.1 18.3 16.3 17.3 0.000 10 0.1 3 Pe n e t r a t i o n R e s i s t a n c e ( p s i ) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Penetration Depth (in.) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Sw e l l ( % ) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0 24 48 72 96 CB R ( % ) 4 8 12 16 20 Molded Density (pcf) 100 101.5 103 104.5 106 107.5 10 blows 20 blows CBR at 95% Max. Density = 11.1% for 0.10 in. Penetration Figure C-10 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T T e s t i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . Tested By: D. Schmitz Checked By: A. Warren CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT Vo i d R a t i o 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 Applied Pressure - tsf 0.1 1 Water Added Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press.Heave %eoSat. Moist. (pcf)Gr. (tsf) (tsf)(tsf) 97.9 % 26.3 % 97.9 23 NP 2.65 -1.3 0.04 0.01 0.0 0.711 Silt ML A-4(0) 722-090G Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development B. Logan sampled 11/29/22 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Location: BH-06 Depth: 8-10'Sample Number: S722-0285 Figure C-11 Th i s t e s t r e p o r t s h a l l n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d e x c e p t i n f u l l w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f A L L W E S T T e s t i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . Tested By: D. Schmitz Checked By: A. Warren CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT Vo i d R a t i o 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 Applied Pressure - tsf 0.1 1 Water Added Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press.Heave %eoSat. Moist. (pcf)Gr. (tsf) (tsf)(tsf) 95.3 % 21.9 % 106.1 22 5 2.65 -1.1 0.05 0.01 0.0 0.608 Silty clay CL-ML A-4(3) 722-090G Elcan Associates, Inc. Tronstad Road Development B. Logan sampled 11/29/22 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Project No.Client:Remarks: Project: Location: BH-08 Depth: 8-10'Sample Number: S722-0287 Figure C-12 Appendix D Draft CC&R’s 1 After recording, return to Tronstad Meadows, LLC 1 S. Montana Street, Suite 2 Helena, MT 59601-5112 DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF TRONSTAD MEADOWS SUBDIVISION THIS DECLARATION is made the ______ day of _______________, 2024 by TRONSTAD MEADOWS, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, 1 S. Montana Street, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59601-5112 (hereinafter "Declarant"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner and developer of certain real property consisting of approximately 60.54 acres in Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana, which has been divided into that number of platted lots shown on a plat or map thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, and which is known as the Tronstad Meadows Subdivision (the “Property”); and, WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject said Property to the covenants, conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said Property and for each Owner thereof, shall inure to the benefit of and pass with said Property, and each and every parcel thereof, and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of Declarant and of every owner of the Property and every portion thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, to provide a uniform plan of development of Tronstad Meadows Subdivision and to protect the value and desirability of the Property, Declarant hereby declares that the Property is and shall be held, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1.1. Definitions Association shall mean the TRONSTAD MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, its successors and assigns. Board of Directors means the Board of Directors of the Association. Bylaws means the Bylaws of the Association as the same may be amended from time to time. Common Area means all those areas of the Tronstad Meadows Subdivision that are for the use, in common, by all owners of Lots in such Subdivision and which shall include, without limitation, all parks, pedestrian crossings, walking trails, bike trails, and road reserves. Common Area shall not include these portions of the Subdivision that are dedicated to the City of Kalispell, Flathead 2 County, or other municipal authorities for public roads, public utilities, and other public improvements. Common Expenses means (a) the expenses of maintaining, managing and operating the Common Area; (b) premiums for liability insurance carried by the Association; (c) all other expenses incurred by the Association in administering, servicing, conserving, managing, paying taxes upon, maintaining, repairing or replacing the Common Area and any improvements located on it; (d) all expenses incurred by the Association in administering and managing the Association and this Declaration; (e) all expenses incurred by the Association in any other activities undertaken for the common benefit of all or some of the Owners; and (f) all expenses lawfully determined to be Common Expenses by the Board of Directors of the Association, as provided in this Declaration or in the Bylaws of the Association. Declarant means Tronstad Meadows, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, its successors and assigns. Declarant 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 of Declarant which are being assigned, in which case the initial Declarant shall retain all other rights as Declarant. Declaration means this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Tronstad Meadows Subdivision, as it may be amended from time to time. Governing Documents means this Declaration, the Bylaws and any rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant to this Declaration and Bylaws, all as may be amended from time to time. Lot means each parcel within the Property that is shown or designated as a Lot on the plat of the Property, but excluding any Common Area and all roads, whether public or private. Owner means the persons or entities, including Declarant, who own, of record, according to the real property records of Flathead County, Montana, fee simple title to a Lot and shall include a person or entity purchasing a Lot under a contract for deed which is recorded (or an abstract of which is recorded) in the records of Flathead County, Montana, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Period of Declarant Control means the period beginning on the date that 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 ten (10) years thereafter or (b) the date on which the Declarant has sold ninety percent (90%) of the Lots within the Subdivision. The Period of Declarant Control may be reinstated or extended by agreement between Declarant and the Association upon such terms and conditions as the parties may agree. After the termination of the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant, if still an Owner, will continue to have all the rights and duties ordinarily given to Owners under this Declaration. Subdivision shall mean Tronstad Meadows Subdivision according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder for Flathead County, Montana. 3 ARTICLE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Section 2.1 Establishment of Association and Adoption of Bylaws. An Association is hereby established to be known as “Tronstad Meadows Homeowners Association." The Association shall be formed prior to the close of sale of any Lot within the Property. The Bylaws of the Association shall be adopted by the Association prior to the close of sale of any Lot within the Property. Section 2.2 Powers. The Association shall have all such powers as permitted by the laws of the State of Montana, provided that the Association shall be subject to and abide by the provisions of this Declaration, as the same may be amended from time to time. Such powers shall include, but shall not be limited to (a) the promulgation and enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Common Area, (b) management of the Common Area, (c) the charging of fees for use of the Common Area, (d) allocation of costs incident to the maintenance of the Common Area, and (e) the allocation of costs and expenses of operation of the Association. Section 2.3 Membership. All Owners of Lots within Tronstad Meadows Subdivision shall be members of the Association. The Owners of any Lot shall automatically become members of the Association and shall remain members until such time as the ownership of such Lot ceases for any reason, at which time the corresponding membership in the Association shall cease. For the purpose of determining membership at any meeting, a person or entity shall be deemed to be a member upon the recording of a duly executed deed to that Owner, or upon the recording of a notice of a purchaser's interest or an abstract of a contract for deed showing a contract purchase by an Owner. The legal title retained by the vendor selling under contract shall not qualify such vendor for membership. Foreclosure of a mortgage, trust indenture or the termination or foreclosure of a contract for deed wherein title is vested in the mortgagee, beneficiary or original seller on a contract, or repossession, for any reason, of a Lot sold under a contract shall terminate the vendee's membership, whereupon all rights to such membership shall vest in the legal Owner. Members shall participate in the manner prescribed by the Articles and Bylaws of the Association and resolutions of the Association's Board of Directors. Section 2.4 Owners' Address. Upon acquiring a Lot, the Owners of the Lot shall immediately inform the Association of their names and of one address to which notices from the Association should be sent. The Owners shall be responsible for informing the Association of any change of address. Section 2.5 Voting. There shall be one vote for each Lot. If a person or entity owns more than one Lot, that person or entity shall have as many votes as the number of Lots owned by that person or entity. If more than one person or entity has an ownership interest in a single Lot, such persons or entities must decide among themselves how the vote for that Lot shall be cast. Section 2.6 Management During Period of Declarant Control. During the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant may appoint, remove and replace from time to time any or all of the directors and officers of the Association. If Declarant so elects, Declarant 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. Any such relinquishment shall be expressed in writing to the Association. Section 2.7 Association Meetings. Annual and Special meetings of the Association shall occur as set forth 4 in the Association's Bylaws. Section 2.8 Turnover Meeting. The Declarant reserves the right, at any time before the expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, to call a special meeting of the Association for the purpose of transferring control of the Association to the members. Should the Declarant call such a meeting, it shall present to the members its plan for the orderly transfer of control of the Association to the members, and the members will be obligated to accept control of the Association in accordance with such plan. ARTICLE III COMMON AREA Section 3.1 Control and Management. The Association shall have the exclusive right and obligation to manage, control, improve and maintain the Common Area within Tronstad Meadows Subdivision. The Association shall have the right to establish and levy assessments against the Lots to pay for the taxes, insurance, maintenance, and other expenses associated with the Common Area under the control and authority of the Association. Section 3.2 Property Taxes. It is acknowledged that, for property tax purposes, Flathead County and the State of Montana may allocate to each Lot a fractional, proportionate portion of the value attributable to the Common Area. By accepting a deed to a Lot, the Owner agrees to this mechanism for property taxation and agrees to pay its proportionate share (as allocated by Flathead County and the State of Montana) of the taxes attributable to the value of the Common Area, while at the same time allowing the Association to administer and control the Common Area. Section 3.3 Easements over all Common Areas. The Owners shall have an easement for the use and enjoyment of all of the Common Area, subject to such rules and regulations as the Association may develop from time to time, and also subject to the rights reserved to Declarant and the reserved rights of any third parties with respect to the Common Area. Declarant reserves and shall have an easement over all of the Common Area for ingress, egress, and utilities. Declarant may grant further easements to others for such use of the Common Area. Section 3.4 No Dedication to the Public. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as a dedication to public use, as a grant to any public municipal or quasi-municipal authority or utility, or an assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of any Common Area by such authority or utility, absent an express written agreement to that effect. However, the Association has the right to dedicate or transfer all or part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purpose and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to. Section 3.5. Approval of Declarant. During the Period of Declarant Control, no construction of improvements shall take place within the Common Area, nor shall any other changes or alterations be made to the Common Area or the uses within the Common Area without the prior written consent of the Declarant. 5 ARTICLE IV ASSESSMENTS AND FINES Section 4.1 Assessments. By virtue of Lot ownership, each Owner agrees to pay to the Association assessments for Common Expenses as provided herein, including annual assessments or charges, special assessments for capital improvements, and default assessments and other expenses, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual, special and default assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall be a charge on each Lot and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each assessment, together with any accruing interest, costs and attorney's fees, shall be the joint and several personal obligations of the Owner(s) of such Lot at the time when the assessment is due. Section 4.2 Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used to promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the Owners; for the improvement, repair and maintenance of easements and Common Area; and for any other purposes expressed or implied in the Governing Documents. Section 4.3 Annual Assessments. The annual assessment per Lot shall be determined by reference to the annual budget of the Association as adopted by the Board of Directors. Payment of the annual assessment shall be due and payable on a date or dates established by the Board of Directors and, in an annual, monthly, quarterly, or other periodic installment as the Board of Directors may provide. The amount of the annual assessments shall be fixed by the Board of Directors in the following manner: At each annual meeting of the members, the Board of Directors shall present a proposed budget of the estimated expenses for the Association for the coming year to the members for review, discussion, amendment, comment, and approval. Estimated expenses for the Association shall include, without limitation, the cost of maintenance, repair and operation of the Common Area; expenses of management; premiums for insurance coverage as deemed desirable or necessary by the Association; water and utility charges for the Common Area; legal and accounting fees; management fees; expenses and liabilities incurred by the Association under or by reason of this Declaration; payment of any deficit remaining from a previous assessment period; and the creation or supplementing of a reserve fund for general, routine maintenance, repairs and replacement of improvements within the Common Area on a periodic basis, as needed. During the Period of Declarant Control, approval of the annual budget shall be by vote of the Declarant. After expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, approval of the annual budget shall be by a majority vote of the members present or voting by proxy. After the annual meeting, the Board of Directors shall set the amount of the assessments and the date(s) upon which they are due for the coming year to cover the budget approved in the manner herein set forth. The initial annual assessment shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per Lot. Section 4.4 Special Assessments. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, levy upon and subsequently collect from each Owner a special assessment for each Lot. Special assessments may be levied for capital improvements or acquisitions, extraordinary expenses or for such other purposes as the Board of Directors may determine. Any special assessment shall be equal for each Lot. Payment of any special assessment shall be due and payable as the Board of Directors may provide. Section 4.5 Fines. In addition to the other enforcement mechanisms set forth in this Declaration, the Board of Directors may enforce the provisions contained in the Governing Documents as follows: 6 The Board of Directors of the Association may impose fines upon Owners for violations. Such imposition of fines may include matters concerning the Design Review Board. Prior to the imposition of a fine, the Board or its agent shall give the Owner in question written notice of the violation and intended amount of the fine, and the notice shall provide, as determined by the Board, a reasonable period of time in which the violator has an opportunity, after receipt of the notice, to correct the violation to avoid the fine. This notice may be tailored by the Board to fit the particular circumstances of the violation. If the violation is remedied within the time set forth by the Board, no fine shall be imposed. If the violation is not corrected within the time set forth by the Board, the Board may, but is not required to, impose a fine, using the procedures set forth below. The Board may impose fines ranging from ten dollars ($10.00) to five hundred dollars ($500.00) for violations continuing after the expiration of the stated opportunity for remediation. The Board shall have the flexibility to assess a fine on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Each separate period (day/week/monthly) of a continuing violation may be considered a separate violation. Notice of Imposition of a fine shall be served by an agent of the Association by mailing a notice by regular mail to all Owners of the Lot in question. The notice may also be mailed certified, return receipt requested, however, the refusal of the Owner to sign for the certified mail will be deemed notice. The Board shall keep a written record of all notices sent for a reasonable time period not to exceed five years. In determining the appropriate amount of a fine, the considerations of the Board shall include, but not be limited to, seriousness of violation, effect of the violation on other Owners or third parties, the importance of consistent enforcement of the Governing Documents, and past violations by the Owner. If a fine assessed hereunder is neither paid nor appealed within seven days of the receipt of notice by the Owner, the fine shall be a lien upon the Owner's Lot. The Board may cause notice of the lien to be filed against the Owner's Lot for the amount of the fine, plus the cost of filing the lien. Section 4.6 Default Assessments. A Default Assessment includes any fine, cost or expense, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the Association as a result of the failure of an Owner to abide by the Governing Documents, or any expense of the Association which is the obligation of an Owner, or which is incurred by the Association on behalf of the Owner pursuant to the Governing Documents. Default Assessments are levied against the Lot or Lots of an Owner who incurs a Default Assessment. Default Assessments shall be immediately due and payable by the Owner upon notice from the Association of the amount of the Default Assessment. Section 4.7 Priority of Lien for Assessments. The lien of any 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 real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges duly imposed against the Lot by a Montana governmental or political subdivision or special taxing district, or any other liens made superior by statute; and (c) the lien for all sums unpaid on a first mortgage 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 an instrument describing the Lot affected and listing the name or names of the Owner or Owners and giving notice of such violation, breach or failure to comply (with such superiority to include any and all advances made by the first mortgagee, even though some or all of such advances may have been made subsequent to the date of filing of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments). Any first mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot by foreclosing 7 the first mortgage or by receiving a deed or assignment in lieu of such a foreclosure, or any purchaser 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 a lien or encumbrance of any type not described in subsection (a), (b) or (c) above 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 and in this Declaration, whether or not such consent is specifically set forth in the instrument creating any such lien or encumbrance. Section 4.8 Failure to Pay Assessments/Remedies of the Association. Any assessment or installment of an assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after its due date will be considered to be delinquent. In the event of such delinquency, the Association may take any or all of the following actions: a. Assess a late charge for each delinquency at uniform rates set by the Board of Directors from time to time; b. In lieu of assessing a late charge, charge interest from the date of delinquency at uniform rates set by the Board of Directors from time to time, but not to exceed the maximum rate of interest allowed by applicable law; c. Suspend the voting rights of the Owner during any period of delinquency; d. Bring an action against any Owner personally obligated to pay the delinquent assessments; e. Record a notice of lien with the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. Upon delivery of the notice of assessment to the Owner, the assessment shall be a lien upon the Owner’s Lot until paid. If the assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the recording of the notice of lien, the Association may foreclose the lien in the manner set forth under Montana law for the foreclosure of liens against real property; f. The Association shall be entitled to recover from the Owner any and all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the collection of any delinquent assessments; g. The remedies provided under this Declaration shall not be exclusive, and the Association may enforce any other remedies to collect delinquent assessments as may be provided by law. Section 4.9 Sale or Transfer of a Lot. The sale, transfer, or encumbrance of any Lot shall not affect the personal liability of the Owner responsible for the assessment or the assessment lien if a lien is recorded in the records of Flathead County, Montana. No sale or transfer to a third party with actual or constructive knowledge of an assessment shall relieve such new Owner from the liability for any outstanding assessments, or from any assessments thereafter becoming due, or from the recorded lien thereof. A person or entity purchasing a Lot shall be responsible for checking with the Association for any outstanding assessments against said Lot before closing the transaction. Section 4.10 Statement of Status of Assessments. On written request, the Association will furnish to an Owner or his designee or to any mortgagee a statement setting forth the amount of unpaid assessments then levied against the Lot in which the Owner, designee or mortgagee has an interest. The information contained in such statement, when signed by an officer, director, or agent of the Association, will be conclusive upon the Association, the Board, and every Owner as to the person or persons to whom such statement is issued and who rely on it in good faith. 8 Section 4.11 Declarant's Responsibility for Assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Declarant, although a member of the Association, shall not be responsible at any time for payment of the annual assessments for Lots owned by Declarant. ARTICLE V PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Section 5.1 Conditions from Subdivision Approval. The conditions imposed upon the approval of the Tronstad Meadows Subdivision are incorporated herein as part of this Declaration to the extent they apply to the use of the Property. Section 5.2 Zoning Regulations. The zoning of the Property at the time of the filing of this Declaration is R-2 PUD, and all uses must comply with that zoning unless the zoning has been changed prior to the attempted use. If the zoning has been changed, the use shall comply with the then-existing zoning. In addition, if there is a need for a zoning compliance permit from the local planning authority, such permit shall also be required under this Declaration. Section 5.3 Land Use. No Lot shall be used except for one single family residence not to exceed two (2) stories with a maximum height of 35 feet. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain except as approved by the Design Review Board. Section 5.4 Sewage Disposal. No individual sewage disposal system shall be permitted. All sewage disposals shall be by connection to the City of Kalispell's sewer system. Section 5.5 Water Supply. No individual water supply system or systems shall be permitted. All water service must be furnished by the City of Kalispell. Section 5.6 Building Location. All structures shall be constructed within the setback requirements established by the City of Kalispell, Montana. Section 5.7 Dwelling Design Guidelines. If any dwelling is replaced or the exterior is modified, such replacement or modified dwelling must be substantially similar to the dwelling in existence at the time Owner purchased the Lot, and all replacements and modifications shall be subject to the review of the Design Review Board. Section 5.8 Landscaping and Yard Maintenance. Subject to delay due to weather related conditions, finish grading, seeding or sodding of a Lot shall be completed within one hundred twenty (120) days after occupancy. All landscaping shall be maintained so as present a tidy, well-maintained appearance, including, but not limited to, regular lawn mowing and weed control; reseeding or replacement of dying lawns, trees or shrubs; trimming trees and shrubbery; and removing dead and overgrown vegetation. All landscaping shall be approved in advance by the Design Review Board. Section 5.9 Landscaping of Boulevards. Subject to approval by the City of Kalispell, all Lots shall be landscaped to the paved street. Boulevards shall be grass only except trees approved by the City of Kalispell, and such landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with Section 5.8. Section 5.10 Snow and Ice Removal. Each Owner shall be responsible to promptly remove snow and ice from driveways and sidewalks. All snow and ice removal from sidewalks shall comply with the ordinances of the City of Kalispell. 9 Section 5.11 Fences. Subject to delay due to weather related conditions, within one hundred twenty (120) days after occupancy, fencing shall be installed on a Lot as provided hereafter. There shall be rear property line fences which shall be six feet (6’) in height and shall be a vinyl privacy fence with aged Cedar (wood grain) finish. There shall be fencing extending from the respective rear property corners of a Lot and along the property line to a point that is within five feet (5’) of the face of the residence or garage. All such fences and any applicable gates shall be five feet (5’) in height and shall be vinyl privacy fences with aged Cedar (wood grain) finish. All fencing on a Lot shall be approved in advance by the Design Review Board and shall also comply with any applicable City of Kalispell rules and regulations. In the event any fencing needs to be replaced, it shall of the same or similar type and shall be approved in advance by the Design Review Board. Section 5.12 Owners' Obligation to Repair and Maintain. Each Owner, at the Owner's sole cost and expense, shall repair the Owner's residence and fencing, keeping the same in a condition comparable to the condition of the residence and fencing at the time of its initial construction, excepting only normal wear and tear. All structures and improvements shall be preserved and of pleasant appearance by maintaining paint, stain and sealer as needed. Section 5.13 Owners' Obligations to Rebuild. If all or any portion of a residence is damaged or destroyed by fire, windstorm, or other casualty, it shall be the duty of the Owner or Owners, with all due diligence, to rebuild, repair or reconstruct the residence in a manner that will substantially restore it to its appearance and condition immediately prior to the casualty. Reconstruction shall be undertaken within three (3) months after the damage occurs, unless prevented by causes beyond the control of the Owner or Owners, and shall be diligently pursued to completion. Section 5.14 Mobile Homes/Trailers for Residential Purposes. No house trailer, mobile home, doublewide, or any other prefabricated structure designed to be hauled or moved on wheels shall be used for residential purposes. No structures of a temporary character, trailer, tent, shack, garage or other outbuilding shall be used on any Lot at any time as a residence, whether temporarily or permanently. Section 5.15 Commercial Activities. No Lot or any part of the Property shall be used at any time for any manufacturing or other commercial purpose that would cause any significant increase in traffic. Lawful home occupation businesses shall comply with the requirements of the City of Kalispell, including, without limitation, Municipal Code Section 27.20.060 as amended. Section 5.16 Vehicles/Recreational vehicles. No truck (except pickups of 1 ton hauling weight or less), house trailer, motor home, camper, boat, motorcycles, ATV, other recreational vehicle or equipment, or trailer of any type shall be stored or parked on any Lot or street other than temporarily (in no case in excess of 48 hours) and then solely for the purpose of loading or unloading or a service call; provided, however, that each vehicle may be kept within an Owner's enclosed garage. No vehicles of any kind shall be parked on any portion of the Property while such vehicles are in a state of disrepair or while being repaired. Section 5.17 Signs. No signs, political endorsement signs, advertising, billboards or advertising structures of any kind shall be erected, used or maintained on the Property except for the purpose of advertising for sale or rent the Lot upon which it is erected, except as provided in Article VI or otherwise under federal or state law. Section 5.18 Short-Term Rentals/Vacation Rentals. No Owner shall rent or lease the dwelling or any other structure on Owner's Lot for a period of less than thirty (30) days nor shall an Owner allow such rent or lease of any structure. Multiple concurrent leases or other actions used to defeat the intent 10 of this provision are not allowed. Section 5.19 Garbage. No rubbish, trash, garbage, or other waste material shall be kept or permitted on any Lot or on any Common Area. All waste shall be removed as often as reasonably necessary. One trash can may remain outside the residence or garage so long as all trash is contained within the trash can with the lid closed and is screened from view. No part of the Property shall be used or maintained as a dumping or storage ground for rubbish, trash, garbage, old automobiles, or other waste. Section 5.20 Common Area. No Owner shall deposit debris such as lawn clippings, limbs, shrub trimmings or garbage of any nature in the Common Area. The Common Area is to be left in its natural state, other than as reasonably required by the Association, a governing municipality or the Declarant to access, repair, replace or update current conditions and improvements. Section 5.21 Animals. No more than five (5) total household pets are allowed, of which no more than three (3) pets can be dogs and of which no more than three (3) pets can be cats. Only small household pets may be kept. No household pets shall be kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose. No livestock, birds or fowl of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any Lot. Permitted animals must be confined to the Lot of their Owner or must be on a leash when not in the backyard. Each Owner is required to clean up after their pets in common areas and shall be responsible for keeping dog barking contained so as not to disrupt the neighborhood. No dog which barks and can be heard on any frequent or continuing basis shall be kept on any Lot. Pets constituting a nuisance may be ordered by the Board of Directors to be kept within the residence of the Owner or ordered expelled from the Property. Section 5.22 Firepits; Burning of Trash. There shall be no outdoor firepits. There shall be no burning of household trash, leaves, branches, yard waste, or other organic waste. Section 5.23 Firearms, Fireworks. There shall be no discharge of firearms or fireworks. There shall be no hunting of any type on Lots or the Common Area. Section 5.24 Wildlife. Feeding or providing supplements such as salt or mineral blocks for deer or other wildlife is prohibited. Owners are encouraged to contact Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks for stewardship practices as they may relate to wildlife. 5.25 Noxious Weeds. No noxious weeds, as defined by Flathead County, shall be allowed on any Lot or in any Common Area. Section 5.26 Sheds, Out Buildings. One (1) shed or other type of outbuilding may be allowed in the backyard of a residence. Such shed or outbuilding shall be no more than six feet (6’) in height, shall be located at the rear property line, and shall present an exterior appearance similar to the residence constructed on the Lot. All sheds or other outbuildings to be located on a Lot shall be approved in advance by the Design Review Board. 5.27 Wood or Pellet Stoves. Wood or Pellet Stoves located within the interior of a residence are permitted. All such stoves must be installed by a licensed professional and shall be regularly maintained. 5.28 Fuel Tanks. No above-ground fuel tanks are permitted on a Lot. Below-ground propane tanks are permitted in the backyard of a Lot if approved in advance by the Design Review Board. All such below-ground tanks must be installed by a licensed propane tank installer. Section 5.29 Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or permitted upon any 11 Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. Section 5.30 Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors may from time to time adopt, amend or terminate rules and regulations concerning the Common Area and/or actions or activities within Tronstad Meadows Subdivision that have an impact on other Owners. A copy of any such rules and regulations shall be sent to all Owners. All Owners and their family, guests and invitees shall abide by any such rules and regulations. ARTICLE VI DECLARANT RIGHTS Section 6.1 Completion of Work and Establishment of Subdivision. Declarant or the transferees of Declarant shall undertake the work of developing all Lots included within the Tronstad Meadows Subdivision. The completion of that work and the sale, rental, or other disposal of residential units is essential to the establishment and welfare of the Property as an ongoing residential community. In order that such work may be completed, and the Property established as a fully occupied residential community as soon as possible, nothing in this Declaration shall be understood or construed to: a. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant's transferees from doing or conducting on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or Declarant' s transferees or their representatives such activities as they may deem to be reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the completion of such work. b. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant' s transferees from constructing and maintaining on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or their representatives such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the completion of such work, the establishment of the Property as a residential community, and the disposition of Lots by sale, lease, or otherwise. c. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant’s transferees from conducting on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or Declarant’s transferees or their representatives the business of completing such work, of establishing the Property as a residential community, and of disposing of Lots by sale, lease or otherwise; or d. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant's transferees from maintaining such sign or signs on any of the Lots owned or controlled by any of them as may be necessary in connection with the sale, lease or otherwise of such Lots. As used in this section, the words "Declarant's transferees" specifically exclude purchasers of Lots improved with completed residences. Section 6.2 Sales Office and Model Unit. Declarant and approved builders shall have the right to maintain a sales office and model unit in one or more of the Lots which the Declarant or the builder owns. The Declarant, approved builders, and prospective purchasers and their agents shall have the right to use and 12 occupy the sales office and model during reasonable hours any day of the week. Section 6.3 Unilateral Amendment by Declarant. At any time before or after the Period of Declarant Control, so long as Declarant owns a Lot, Declarant 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 mortgagor 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 VII DESIGN REVIEW Section 7.1 Design Review. In order to maintain harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures, topography and native vegetation and to otherwise assist in achieving the general purposes of this Declaration, the following activities shall be subject to design review: - Construction of any dwelling, structure, fence, or other improvements on a Lot in the Subdivision and exterior modification or rebuilding of any dwelling, structure, fence or other improvement. - Landscaping and modifications to landscaping on any Lot in the Subdivision. None of these activities shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Design Review Board. Alterations or remodeling which are completely within a dwelling or structure, and which do not change the exterior appearance of the structure, are not subject to design review. Section 7.2 Design Review Board. The Design Review Board shall consist of one or more persons. During the Period of Declarant Control, the members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed by Declarant and may include Declarant or parties related to Declarant. The initial members of the Design Review Board shall be Daniel G. Elcan and Christie Amezquita. After the Period of Declarant Control, the members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed by the Board of Directors of the Association. The party appointing the members of the Design Review Board may remove any such members and replace any members who are so removed. Section 7.3 Application. Prior to undertaking any activities that are subject to design review, the Owner shall provide the Design Review Board with the materials requested by Design Review Board to facilitate review of the project in accordance with the process adopted by the Design Review Board. Section 7.4 Review Fees. The Design Review Board may require payment of fees for review of proposed plans. The fees as set by the Design Review Board shall be in amount sufficient to reasonably compensate the Design Review Board for its administrative costs and expenses likely to be incurred in connection with its activities. The Design Review Board may require payment of the fee in advance as a condition of making its review or determination. Failure to pay any fee required for Design Review Board review or action shall be interpreted as if the matter was not presented for review, and no action of the Design Review Board shall be required. Section 7.5 Action by Design Review Board. Upon receipt of plans and other material, the Design 13 Review Board shall review the proposed improvement to determine whether it is in conformance with the goals stated in Section 7.1 and with the Governing Documents. The Design Review Board shall respond to the proposal in writing within 30 days of receipt of all required materials, stating its approval or the reasons for its disapproval. If the Design Review Board does not respond within the 30-day period, the plans shall be deemed approved so long as the Owner can affirmatively establish that the Design Review Board received such documentation. The Design Review Board may also monitor construction to ensure that the approved plans are being followed. Any revisions to the approved plans affecting the exterior of the proposed structure shall be subject to design review, whether such revisions occur prior to or during construction. Section 7.6 Guidelines. The Design Review Board may develop design guidelines for its design review. These guidelines may include building construction guidelines and such other guidelines as the Design Review Board, or the Board of Directors may determine to be useful in maintaining the desirability of Tronstad Meadows Subdivision. Section 7.7 Liability. Neither the Declarant, the Association, the Design Review Board nor their respective members, officers, directors, employees, or agents shall be responsible or liable for the defects in any plans or specifications submitted, revised or approved under this Article, nor for any defects in construction pursuant to such plans and specifications. Approval of plans and specifications under this Article shall not be deemed in lieu of compliance by the Owner with applicable building codes or other governmental laws or regulations. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Association shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the members of the Design Review Board and their employees and agents ("indemnified persons") from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and settlements which may be asserted against the members of the Design Review Board arising from, caused by, related to or attributable to (directly or indirectly, in whole or in part) their service on the Design Review Board. If it is reasonably necessary for an indemnified person to incur or to pay any expenses or costs, including attorneys' fees or court costs, for purposes of resisting, adjusting, compromising, settling or defending any claim, demand, cause of action, loss, damage or liability, or of enforcing this provision, then the Association agrees to and shall reimburse the indemnified person within a reasonable time. Any person seeking indemnity under this provision shall give the Association reasonable written notice of any claim, demand, cause of action, loss, damage or liability. ARTICLE VIII DURATION AND AMENDMENT Section 8.1 Duration/Termination. These covenants, conditions and restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date these covenants, conditions and restrictions are recorded, after which time said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless the written consent of Owners holding seventy percent (70%) or more of the votes in the Association has been recorded agreeing to change said covenants, conditions and restrictions in whole or in part. Section 8.2 Amendment. Subject to the limitations of Section 6.3, this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, or any provision of it, may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or in part as follows: a. Prior to Sale of Lots. Prior to the sale of any Lot (excluding any sale to a person or entity 14 affiliated with Declarant), Declarant may terminate, extend, amend or revoke this Declaration as to the whole or any portion of the Property by recording in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document signed by the Declarant stating the action taken. b. After Sale of Lots but During Period of Declarant Control. After the sale of a Lot (excluding any sale to a person or entity affiliated with Declarant) but before expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant may terminate, extend, amend or revoke this Declaration in whole or in part. A copy of the document stating the action intended to be taken by the Declarant and a notice of the Owner rights under this Section shall be mailed to each Owner by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the address of Owner in the records of the Association. Unless written objection is received by Declarant from the Owners holding seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the votes within thirty (30) days of the mailing of notice to the Owners, the action proposed to be taken by the Declarant shall be considered approved and shall become final. The Declarant shall then record in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document stating the action taken, together with a certification that notice was given to the Owners as required herein and that fewer than seventy-five percent (75%) of the Owners objected to the action. c. After the Period of Declarant Control. After the Period of Declarant Control, this Declaration, or any provision of it, may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or any portion of the Property by the Declarant, unilaterally, pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.3. In addition, after the Period of Declarant Control, this Declaration, or any provision of it, may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or any portion of the Property upon the written consent of Owners holding seventy percent (70%) or more of the votes of the Association. The amendment will be immediately effective upon the recording in the records of Flathead County, Montana, of a copy of the document together with a certification signed by an officer of the Association stating that the required number of consents of Owners was obtained. d. Declarant Approval. No termination, extension or amendment of this Declaration will be effective in any event during the Period of Declarant Control unless the written approval of Declarant is first obtained. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the abandonment of the Association's responsibility for the maintenance of the Common Area identified herein. ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.1 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 or the Association, be deemed accepted, ratified, adopted and declared as a personal covenant of such Owner or Association, as the case may be, and as a personal covenant shall be binding on such Owner or Association and such Owner's or Association's respective heirs, personal representatives, 15 successors and assigns; (c) shall be deemed a covenant by Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, and also an equitable servitude running, in each case, as a burden with and upon the title to each Lot 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 Lot within the Subdivision, which lien with respect to any Lot shall be deemed a lien in favor of Declarant and/or the Association. Section 9.2 Enforcement and Remedies. The Declarant, the Association and/or any Owner or Owners of Lots shall have the right to enforce all covenants, conditions and restrictions now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. 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. Each provision contained in this Declaration shall be enforceable by the Association or by any Owner who has first made written demand on the Association to enforce such provision and 30 days have elapsed 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. Section 9.3 Limited Liability. The Declarant, the Association, or their respective officers, directors, employees or agents shall not be liable to any party 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 9.4 Successors and Assigns. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions contained in this Declaration shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant and each Owner and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Section 9.5 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 or any valid and enforceable part of a provision of this Declaration. Section 9.6 Captions. The captions and headings in this instrument are for convenience of reference only and shall not be considered in construing any provision of this Declaration. Section 9.7 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 plural, and vice versa. Section 9.8 No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision contained in this Declaration shall not operate as a waiver of any such provision or of any other provision of this Declaration. Section 9.9 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 costs and attorneys' fees incurred. It is expressly understood by any person purchasing a Lot in this Subdivision that if an action is successfully brought against an Owner for a violation of the terms of this Declaration, that a reasonable attorneys' fee shall be assessed against the Owner in addition to costs and any other damages. 16 DATED this day of , 2024. Tronstad Meadows, LLC By: As its: Manager STATE OF MONTANA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF FLATHEAD ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of ____ 2024, by ________, Manager of Tronstad Meadows, LLC. Notary Public for the State of Montana 1 After recording, return to Whitetail Crossing, LLC 1 S. Montana Street, Suite 2 Helena, MT 59601-5112 DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF WHITETAIL CROSSING SUBDIVISION THIS DECLARATION is made the ______ day of _______________, 2024, by WHITETAIL CROSSING, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, 1 S. Montana Street, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59601-5112 (hereinafter "Declarant"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner and developer of certain real property consisting of approximately 50.03 acres in Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana, which has been divided into that number of platted lots shown on a plat or map thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, and which is known as the Whitetail Crossing Subdivision (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject said Property to the covenants, conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said Property and for each Owner thereof, shall inure to the benefit of and pass with said Property, and each and every parcel thereof, and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of Declarant and of every owner of the Property and every portion thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, to provide a uniform plan of development of Whitetail Crossing Subdivision and to protect the value and desirability of the Property, Declarant hereby declares that the Property is and shall be held, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1.1. Definitions Association shall mean the WHITETAIL CROSSING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, its successors and assigns. Board of Directors means the Board of Directors of the Association. Bylaws means the Bylaws of the Association as the same may be amended from time to time. Common Area means all those areas of the Whitetail Crossing Subdivision that are for the use, in common, by all owners of Lots in such Subdivision and which shall include, without limitation, all parks, pedestrian crossings, walking trails, bike trails, and road reserves. Common Area shall not include these portions of the Subdivision that are dedicated to the City of Kalispell, Flathead 2 County, or other municipal authorities for public roads, public utilities, and other public improvements. Common Expenses means (a) the expenses of maintaining, managing and operating the Common Area; (b) premiums for liability insurance carried by the Association; (c) all other expenses incurred by the Association in administering, servicing, conserving, managing, paying taxes upon, maintaining, repairing or replacing the Common Area and any improvements located on it; (d) all expenses incurred by the Association in administering and managing the Association and this Declaration; (e) all expenses incurred by the Association in any other activities undertaken for the common benefit of all or some of the Owners; and (f) all expenses lawfully determined to be Common Expenses by the Board of Directors of the Association, as provided in this Declaration or in the Bylaws of the Association. Declarant means Whitetail Crossing, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, its successors and assigns Declarant 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 of Declarant which are being assigned, in which case the initial Declarant shall retain all other rights as Declarant. Declaration means this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Whitetail Crossing Subdivision, as it may be amended from time to time. Governing Documents means this Declaration, the Bylaws and any rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant to this Declaration and Bylaws, all as may be amended from time to time. Lot means each parcel within the Property that is shown or designated as a Lot on the plat of the Property, but excluding any Common Area and all roads, whether public or private. Owner means the persons or entities, including Declarant, who own, of record, according to the real property records of Flathead County, Montana, fee simple title to a Lot and shall include a person or entity purchasing a Lot under a contract for deed which is recorded (or an abstract of which is recorded) in the records of Flathead County, Montana, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Period of Declarant Control means the period beginning on the date that 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 ten (10) years thereafter or (b) the date on which the Declarant has sold ninety percent (90%) of the Lots within the Subdivision. The Period of Declarant Control may be reinstated or extended by agreement between Declarant and the Association upon such terms and conditions as the parties may agree. After the termination of the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant, if still an Owner, will continue to have all the rights and duties ordinarily given to Owners under this Declaration. Subdivision shall mean Whitetail Crossing Subdivision according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder for Flathead County, Montana. 3 ARTICLE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Section 2.1 Establishment of Association and Adoption of Bylaws. An Association is hereby established to be known as “Whitetail Crossing Homeowners Association." The Association shall be formed prior to the close of sale of any Lot within the Property. The Bylaws of the Association shall be adopted by the Association prior to the close of sale of any Lot within the Property. Section 2.2 Powers. The Association shall have all such powers as permitted by the laws of the State of Montana, provided that the Association shall be subject to and abide by the provisions of this Declaration, as the same may be amended from time to time. Such powers shall include, but shall not be limited to (a) the promulgation and enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the Common Area, (b) management of the Common Area, (c) the charging of fees for use of the Common Area, (d) allocation of costs incident to the maintenance of the Common Area, and (e) the allocation of costs and expenses of operation of the Association. Section 2.3 Membership. All Owners of Lots within Whitetail Crossing Subdivision shall be members of the Association. The Owners of any Lot shall automatically become members of the Association and shall remain members until such time as the ownership of such Lot ceases for any reason, at which time the corresponding membership in the Association shall cease. For the purpose of determining membership at any meeting, a person or entity shall be deemed to be a member upon the recording of a duly executed deed to that Owner, or upon the recording of a notice of a purchaser's interest or an abstract of a contract for deed showing a contract purchase by an Owner. The legal title retained by the vendor selling under contract shall not qualify such vendor for membership. Foreclosure of a mortgage, trust indenture or the termination or foreclosure of a contract for deed wherein title is vested in the mortgagee, beneficiary or original seller on a contract, or repossession, for any reason, of a Lot sold under a contract shall terminate the vendee's membership, whereupon all rights to such membership shall vest in the legal Owner. Members shall participate in the manner prescribed by the Articles and Bylaws of the Association and resolutions of the Association's Board of Directors. Section 2.4 Owners' Address. Upon acquiring a Lot, the Owners of the Lot shall immediately inform the Association of their names and of one address to which notices from the Association should be sent. The Owners shall be responsible for informing the Association of any change of address. Section 2.5 Voting. There shall be one vote for each Lot. If a person or entity owns more than one Lot, that person or entity shall have as many votes as the number of Lots owned by that person or entity. If more than one person or entity has an ownership interest in a single Lot, such persons or entities must decide among themselves how the vote for that Lot shall be cast. Section 2.6 Management During Period of Declarant Control. During the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant may appoint, remove and replace from time to time any or all of the directors and officers of the Association. If Declarant so elects, Declarant 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. Any such relinquishment shall be expressed in writing to the Association. Section 2.7 Association Meetings. Annual and Special meetings of the Association shall occur as set forth 4 in the Association's Bylaws. Section 2.8 Turnover Meeting. The Declarant reserves the right, at any time before the expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, to call a special meeting of the Association for the purpose of transferring control of the Association to the members. Should the Declarant call such a meeting, it shall present to the members its plan for the orderly transfer of control of the Association to the members, and the members will be obligated to accept control of the Association in accordance with such plan. ARTICLE III COMMON AREA Section 3.1 Control and Management. The Association shall have the exclusive right and obligation to manage, control, improve and maintain the Common Area within Whitetail Crossing Subdivision. The Association shall have the right to establish and levy assessments against the Lots to pay for the taxes, insurance, maintenance, and other expenses associated with the Common Area under the control and authority of the Association. Section 3.2 Property Taxes. It is acknowledged that, for property tax purposes, Flathead County and the State of Montana may allocate to each Lot a fractional, proportionate portion of the value attributable to the Common Area. By accepting a deed to a Lot, the Owner agrees to this mechanism for property taxation and agrees to pay its proportionate share (as allocated by Flathead County and the State of Montana) of the taxes attributable to the value of the Common Area, while at the same time allowing the Association to administer and control the Common Area. Section 3.3 Easements over all Common Areas. The Owners shall have an easement for the use and enjoyment of all of the Common Area, subject to such rules and regulations as the Association may develop from time to time, and also subject to the rights reserved to Declarant and the reserved rights of any third parties with respect to the Common Area. Declarant reserves and shall have an easement over all of the Common Area for ingress, egress, and utilities. Declarant may grant further easements to others for such use of the Common Area. Section 3.4 No Dedication to the Public. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as a dedication to public use, as a grant to any public municipal or quasi-municipal authority or utility, or an assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of any Common Area by such authority or utility, absent an express written agreement to that effect. However, the Association has the right to dedicate or transfer all or part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purpose and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to. Section 3.5. Approval of Declarant. During the Period of Declarant Control, no construction of improvements shall take place within the Common Area, nor shall any other changes or alterations be made to the Common Area or the uses within the Common Area without the prior written consent of the Declarant. ARTICLE IV ASSESSMENTS AND FINES Section 4.1 Assessments. By virtue of Lot ownership, each Owner agrees to pay to the Association assessments for Common Expenses as provided herein, including annual assessments or charges, special 5 assessments for capital improvements, and default assessments and other expenses, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual, special and default assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall be a charge on each Lot and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each assessment, together with any accruing interest, costs and attorney's fees, shall be the joint and several personal obligations of the Owner(s) of such Lot at the time when the assessment is due. Section 4.2 Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used to promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the Owners; for the improvement, repair and maintenance of easements and Common Area; and for any other purposes expressed or implied in the Governing Documents. Section 4.3 Annual Assessments. The annual assessment per Lot shall be determined by reference to the annual budget of the Association as adopted by the Board of Directors. Payment of the annual assessment shall be due and payable on a date or dates established by the Board of Directors in an annual, monthly, quarterly, or other periodic installment as the Board of Directors may provide. The amount of the annual assessments shall be fixed by the Board of Directors in the following manner: At each annual meeting of the members, the Board of Directors shall present a proposed budget of the estimated expenses for the Association for the coming year to the members for review, discussion, amendment, comment, and approval. Estimated expenses for the Association shall include, without limitation, the cost of maintenance, repair and operation of the Common Area; expenses of management; premiums for insurance coverage as deemed desirable or necessary by the Association; water and utility charges for the Common Area; legal and accounting fees; management fees; expenses and liabilities incurred by the Association under or by reason of this Declaration; payment of any deficit remaining from a previous assessment period; and the creation or supplementing of a reserve fund for general, routine maintenance, repairs and replacement of improvements within the Common Area on a periodic basis, as needed. During the Period of Declarant Control, approval of the annual budget shall be by vote of the Declarant. After expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, approval of the annual budget shall be by a majority vote of the members present or voting by proxy. After the annual meeting, the Board of Directors shall set the amount of the assessments and the date(s) upon which they are due for the coming year to cover the budget approved in the manner herein set forth. The initial annual assessment shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per Lot. Section 4.4 Special Assessments. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, levy upon and subsequently collect from each Owner a special assessment for each Lot. Special assessments may be levied for capital improvements or acquisitions, extraordinary expenses or for such other purposes as the Board of Directors may determine. Any special assessment shall be equal for each Lot. Payment of any special assessment shall be due and payable as the Board of Directors may provide. Section 4.5 Fines. In addition to the other enforcement mechanisms set forth in this Declaration, the Board of Directors may enforce the provisions contained in the Governing Documents as follows: The Board of Directors of the Association may impose fines upon Owners for violations. Such imposition of fines may include matters concerning the Design Review Board. Prior to the imposition of a fine, the Board or its agent shall give the Owner in question written notice of the violation and intended amount of the fine, and the notice shall provide, as determined by the 6 Board, a reasonable period of time in which the violator has an opportunity, after receipt of the notice, to correct the violation to avoid the fine. This notice may be tailored by the Board to fit the particular circumstances of the violation. If the violation is remedied within the time set forth by the Board, no fine shall be imposed. If the violation is not corrected within the time set forth by the Board, the Board may, but is not required to, impose a fine, using the procedures set forth below. The Board may impose fines ranging from ten dollars ($10.00) to five hundred dollars ($500.00) for violations continuing after the expiration of the stated opportunity for remediation. The Board shall have the flexibility to assess a fine on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Each separate period (day/week/monthly) of a continuing violation may be considered a separate violation. Notice of Imposition of a fine shall be served by an agent of the Association by mailing a notice by regular mail to all Owners of the Lot in question. The notice may also be mailed certified, return receipt requested, however, the refusal of the Owner to sign for the certified mail will be deemed notice. The Board shall keep a written record of all notices sent for a reasonable time period not to exceed five years. In determining the appropriate amount of a fine, the considerations of the Board shall include, but not be limited to, seriousness of violation, effect of the violation on other Owners or third parties, the importance of consistent enforcement of the Governing Documents, and past violations by the Owner. If a fine assessed hereunder is neither paid nor appealed within seven days of the receipt of notice by the Owner, the fine shall be a lien upon the Owner's Lot. The Board may cause notice of the lien to be filed against the Owner's Lot for the amount of the fine, plus the cost of filing the lien. Section 4.6 Default Assessments. A Default Assessment includes any fine, cost or expense, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the Association as a result of the failure of an Owner to abide by the Governing Documents, or any expense of the Association which is the obligation of an Owner, or which is incurred by the Association on behalf of the Owner pursuant to the Governing Documents. Default Assessments are levied against the Lot or Lots of an Owner who incurs a Default Assessment. Default Assessments shall be immediately due and payable by the Owner upon notice from the Association of the amount of the Default Assessment. Section 4.7 Priority of Lien for Assessments. The lien of any 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 real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges duly imposed against the Lot by a Montana governmental or political subdivision or special taxing district, or any other liens made superior by statute; and (c) the lien for all sums unpaid on a first mortgage 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 an instrument describing the Lot affected and listing the name or names of the Owner or Owners and giving notice of such violation, breach or failure to comply (with such superiority to include any and all advances made by the first mortgagee, even though some or all of such advances may have been made subsequent to the date of filing of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments). Any first mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot by foreclosing the first mortgage or by receiving a deed or assignment in lieu of such a foreclosure, or any purchaser 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 a lien or encumbrance of any type not described in subsection (a), (b) or (c) above will be deemed to consent that their lien or 7 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 and in this Declaration, whether or not such consent is specifically set forth in the instrument creating any such lien or encumbrance. Section 4.8 Failure to Pay Assessments/Remedies of the Association. Any assessment or installment of an assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after its due date will be considered to be delinquent. In the event of such delinquency, the Association may take any or all of the following actions: a. Assess a late charge for each delinquency at uniform rates set by the Board of Directors from time to time; b. In lieu of assessing a late charge, charge interest from the date of delinquency at uniform rates set by the Board of Directors from time to time, but not to exceed the maximum rate of interest allowed by applicable law; c. Suspend the voting rights of the Owner during any period of delinquency; d. Bring an action against any Owner personally obligated to pay the delinquent assessments; e. Record a notice of lien with the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. Upon delivery of the notice of assessment to the Owner, the assessment shall be a lien upon the Owner’s Lot until paid. If the assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the recording of the notice of lien, the Association may foreclose the lien in the manner set forth under Montana law for the foreclosure of liens against real property; f. The Association shall be entitled to recover from the Owner any and all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the collection of any delinquent assessments; g. The remedies provided under this Declaration shall not be exclusive, and the Association may enforce any other remedies to collect delinquent assessments as may be provided by law. Section 4.9 Sale or Transfer of a Lot. The sale, transfer, or encumbrance of any Lot shall not affect the personal liability of the Owner responsible for the assessment or the assessment lien if a lien is recorded in the records of Flathead County, Montana. No sale or transfer to a third party with actual or constructive knowledge of an assessment shall relieve such new Owner from the liability for any outstanding assessments, or from any assessments thereafter becoming due, or from the recorded lien thereof. A person or entity purchasing a Lot shall be responsible for checking with the Association for any outstanding assessments against said Lot before closing the transaction. Section 4.10 Statement of Status of Assessments. On written request, the Association will furnish to an Owner or his designee or to any mortgagee a statement setting forth the amount of unpaid assessments then levied against the Lot in which the Owner, designee or mortgagee has an interest. The information contained in such statement, when signed by an officer, director, or agent of the Association, will be conclusive upon the Association, the Board, and every Owner as to the person or persons to whom such statement is issued and who rely on it in good faith. Section 4.11 Declarant's Responsibility for Assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Declarant, although a member of the Association, shall not be responsible at any time for payment of the annual assessments for Lots owned by Declarant. 8 ARTICLE V PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Section 5.1 Conditions from Subdivision Approval. The conditions imposed upon the approval of the Tronstad Meadows Subdivision are incorporated herein as part of this Declaration to the extent they apply to the use of the Property. Section 5.2 Zoning Regulations. The zoning of the Property at the time of the filing of this Declaration is R-2 PUD, and all uses must comply with that zoning unless the zoning has been changed prior to the attempted use. If the zoning has been changed, the use shall comply with the then-existing zoning. In addition, if there is a need for a zoning compliance permit from the local planning authority, such permit shall also be required under this Declaration. Section 5.3 Land Use. No Lot shall be used except for one single family residence not to exceed two (2) stories with a maximum height of 35 feet. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain except as approved by the Design Review Board. Section 5.4 Sewage Disposal. No individual sewage disposal system shall be permitted. All sewage disposals shall be by connection to the City of Kalispell's sewer system. Section 5.5 Water Supply. No individual water supply system or systems shall be permitted. All water service must be furnished by the City of Kalispell. Section 5.6 Building Location. All structures shall be constructed within the setback requirements established by the City of Kalispell, Montana. Section 5.7 Dwelling Design Guidelines. If any dwelling is replaced or the exterior is modified, such replacement or modified dwelling must be substantially similar to the dwelling in existence at the time Owner purchased the Lot, and all replacements and modifications shall be subject to the review of the Design Review Board. Section 5.8 Landscaping and Yard Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained so as present a tidy, well-maintained appearance, including, but not limited to, regular lawn mowing and weed control; reseeding or replacement of dying lawns, trees or shrubs; trimming trees and shrubbery; and removing dead and overgrown vegetation. All landscaping shall be approved in advance by the Design Review Board. Section 5.9 Landscaping of Boulevards. All Lots shall be landscaped to the paved street. Boulevards shall be grass only except trees approved by the City of Kalispell, and such landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with Section 5.8. Section 5.10 Snow and Ice Removal. Each Owner shall be responsible to promptly remove snow and ice from driveways and sidewalks. All snow and ice removal from sidewalks shall comply with the ordinances of the City of Kalispell. Section 5.11 Fences. Declarant will install 6’ vinyl privacy fences with aged Cedar (wood grain) finish to enclose the entire back yard area. No other fencing type, color or placement is allowed. In the event any fencing needs to be replaced it shall be of the same or similar type and shall be approved in advance by the Design Review Board. Section 5.12 Owners' Obligation to Repair and Maintain. Each Owner, at the Owner's sole cost and expense, shall repair the Owner's residence and fencing, keeping the same in a condition comparable to the 9 condition of the residence and fencing at the time of its initial construction, excepting only normal wear and tear. All structures and improvements shall be preserved and of pleasant appearance by maintaining paint, stain and sealer as needed. Section 5.13 Owners' Obligations to Rebuild. If all or any portion of a residence is damaged or destroyed by fire, windstorm, or other casualty, it shall be the duty of the Owner or Owners, with all due diligence, to rebuild, repair or reconstruct the residence in a manner that will substantially restore it to its appearance and condition immediately prior to the casualty. Reconstruction shall be undertaken within three (3) months after the damage occurs, unless prevented by causes beyond the control of the Owner or Owners, and shall be diligently pursued to completion. Section 5.14 Mobile Homes/Trailers for Residential Purposes. No house trailer, mobile home, doublewide, or any other prefabricated structure designed to be hauled or moved on wheels shall be used for residential purposes. No structures of a temporary character, trailer, tent, shack, garage or other outbuilding shall be used on any Lot at any time as a residence, whether temporarily or permanently. Section 5.15 Commercial Activities. No Lot or any part of the Property shall be used at any time for any manufacturing or other commercial purpose that would cause any significant increase in traffic. Lawful home occupation businesses shall comply with the requirements of the City of Kalispell, including, without limitation, Municipal Code Section 27.20.060 as amended. Section 5.16 Vehicles/Recreational vehicles. No truck (except pickups of ¾ ton hauling weight or less), house trailer, motor home, camper, boat, motorcycles, ATV, other recreational vehicle or equipment, or trailer of any type shall be stored or parked on any Lot or street other than temporarily (in no case in excess of 48 hours) and then solely for the purpose of loading or unloading or a service call; provided, however, that each vehicle may be kept within an Owner's enclosed garage. No vehicles of any kind shall be parked on any portion of the Property while such vehicles are in a state of disrepair or while being repaired. Section 5.17 Signs. No signs, political endorsement signs, advertising, billboards or advertising structures of any kind shall be erected, used or maintained on the Property except for the purpose of advertising for sale or rent the Lot upon which it is erected, except as provided in Article VI or otherwise under federal or state law. Section 5.18 Short-Term Rentals/Vacation Rentals. No Owner shall rent or lease the dwelling or any other structure on Owner's Lot for a period of less than thirty (30) days nor shall an Owner allow such rent or lease of any structure. Multiple concurrent leases or other actions used to defeat the intent of this provision are not allowed. Section 5.19 Garbage. No rubbish, trash, garbage, or other waste material shall be kept or permitted on any Lot or on any Common Area. All waste shall be removed as often as reasonably necessary. One trash can may remain outside the residence or garage so long as all trash is contained within the trash can with the lid closed and is screened from view. No part of the Property shall be used or maintained as a dumping or storage ground for rubbish, trash, garbage, old automobiles, or other waste. Section 5.20 Common Area. No Owner shall deposit debris such as lawn clippings, limbs, shrub trimmings or garbage of any nature in the Common Area. The Common Area is to be left in its natural state, other than as reasonably required by the Association, a governing municipality or the Declarant to access, repair, replace or update current conditions and improvements. 10 Section 5.21 Animals. No animals, birds or fowl of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats and other domestic animals may be kept and raised, but not for commercial purposes. Permitted animals must be confined to the Lot of their Owner and must be on a leash when not in the backyard. Each Owner is required to clean up after their pets and shall be responsible to keep dog barking contained so as not to disrupt the neighborhood. Section 5.22 Burning of Trash. There shall be no burning of household trash, leaves, branches, yard waste, or other organic waste. Section 5.23 Firearms, Fireworks. There shall be no discharge of firearms or fireworks. There shall be no hunting of any type on Lots or the Common Area. Section 5.24 Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or permitted upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. Section 5.25 Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors may from time to time adopt, amend or terminate rules and regulations concerning the Common Area and/or actions or activities within Whitetail Crossing Subdivision that have an impact on other Owners. A copy of any such rules and regulations shall be sent to all Owners. All Owners and their family, guests and invitees shall abide by any such rules and regulations. ARTICLE VI DECLARANT RIGHTS Section 6.1 Completion of Work and Establishment of Subdivision. Declarant or the transferees of Declarant shall undertake the work of developing all Lots included within the Whitetail Crossing Subdivision. The completion of that work, and the sale, rental, or other disposal of residential units is essential to the establishment and welfare of the Property as an ongoing residential community. In order that such work may be completed, and the Property established as a fully occupied residential community as soon as possible, nothing in this Declaration shall be understood or construed to: a. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant's transferees from doing or conducting on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or Declarant' s transferees or their representatives such activities as they may deem to be reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the completion of such work. b. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant' s transferees from constructing and maintaining on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or their representatives such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the completion of such work, the establishment of the Property as a residential community, and the disposition of Lots by sale, lease, or otherwise. c. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees, or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant’s transferees from conducting on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or Declarant’s transferees or their representatives the business of completing such work, of establishing the Property as a 11 residential community, and of disposing of Lots by sale, lease or otherwise; or d. prevent Declarant, Declarant's transferees or the respective employees, contractors or subcontractors of Declarant or Declarant's transferees from maintaining such sign or signs on any of the Lots owned or controlled by any of them as may be necessary in connection with the sale, lease or otherwise of such Lots. As used in this section, the words "Declarant's transferees" specifically exclude purchasers of Lots improved with completed residences. Section 6.2 Sales Office and Model Unit. Declarant shall have the right to maintain a sales office and model unit in one or more of the Lots which the Declarant owns. The Declarant and prospective purchasers and their agents shall have the right to use and occupy the sales office and model during reasonable hours any day of the week. Section 6.3 Unilateral Amendment by Declarant. At any time before or after the Period of Declarant Control, so long as Declarant owns a Lot, Declarant 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 mortgagor 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 VII DESIGN REVIEW Section 7.1 Design Review. In order to maintain harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures, topography and native vegetation and to otherwise assist in achieving the general purposes of this Declaration, the following activities shall be subject to design review: - Construction of any dwelling, structure, fence, or other improvements on a Lot in the Subdivision and exterior modification or rebuilding of any dwelling, structure, fence or other improvement. - Landscaping and modifications to landscaping on any Lot in the Subdivision. None of these activities shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Design Review Board. Alterations or remodeling which are completely within a dwelling or structure, and which do not change the exterior appearance of the structure, are not subject to design review. Section 7.2 Design Review Board. The Design Review Board shall consist of one or more persons. During the Period of Declarant Control, the members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed by Declarant and may include Declarant or parties related to Declarant. The initial members of the Design Review Board shall be Daniel G. Elcan and Christie Amezquita. After the Period of Declarant Control, the members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed by the Board of Directors of the Association. The party appointing the members of the Design Review Board may remove any such members and replace any members who are so removed. 12 Section 7.3 Application. Prior to undertaking any activities that are subject to design review, the Owner shall provide the Design Review Board with the materials requested by Design Review Board to facilitate review of the project in accordance with the process adopted by the Design Review Board. Section 7.4 Review Fees. The Design Review Board may require payment of fees for review of proposed plans. The fees as set by the Design Review Board shall be in amount sufficient to reasonably compensate the Design Review Board for its administrative costs and expenses likely to be incurred in connection with its activities. The Design Review Board may require payment of the fee in advance as a condition of making its review or determination. Failure to pay any fee required for Design Review Board review or action shall be interpreted as if the matter was not presented for review, and no action of the Design Review Board shall be required. Section 7.5 Action by Design Review Board. Upon receipt of plans and other material, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed improvement to determine whether it is in conformance with the goals stated in Section 7.1 and with the Governing Documents. The Design Review Board shall respond to the proposal in writing within 30 days of receipt of all required materials, stating its approval or the reasons for its disapproval. If the Design Review Board does not respond within the 30-day period, the plans shall be deemed approved so long as the Owner can affirmatively establish that the Design Review Board received such documentation. The Design Review Board may also monitor construction to ensure that the approved plans are being followed. Any revisions to the approved plans affecting the exterior of the proposed structure shall be subject to design review, whether such revisions occur prior to or during construction. Section 7.6 Guidelines. The Design Review Board may develop design guidelines for its design review. These guidelines may include building construction guidelines and such other guidelines as the Design Review Board, or the Board of Directors may determine to be useful in maintaining the desirability of Tronstad Meadows Subdivision. Section 7.7 Liability. Neither the Declarant, the Association, the Design Review Board nor their respective members, officers, directors, employees, or agents shall be responsible or liable for the defects in any plans or specifications submitted, revised or approved under this Article, nor for any defects in construction pursuant to such plans and specifications. Approval of plans and specifications under this Article shall not be deemed in lieu of compliance by the Owner with applicable building codes or other governmental laws or regulations. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Association shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the members of the Design Review Board and their employees and agents ("indemnified persons") from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and settlements which may be asserted against the members of the Design Review Board arising from, caused by, related to or attributable to (directly or indirectly, in whole or in part) their service on the Design Review Board. If it is reasonably necessary for an indemnified person to incur or to pay any expenses or costs, including attorneys' fees or court costs, for purposes of resisting, adjusting, compromising, settling or defending any claim, demand, cause of action, loss, damage or liability, or of enforcing this provision, then the Association agrees to and shall reimburse the indemnified person within a reasonable time. Any person seeking indemnity under this provision shall give the Association reasonable written notice of any claim, demand, cause of action, loss, damage or liability. 13 ARTICLE VIII DURATION AND AMENDMENT Section 8.1 Duration/Termination. These covenants, conditions and restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date these covenants, conditions and restrictions are recorded, after which time said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless the written consent of Owners holding seventy percent (70%) or more of the votes in the Association has been recorded agreeing to change said covenants, conditions and restrictions in whole or in part. Section 8.2 Amendment. Subject to the limitations of Section 6.3, this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, or any provision of it, may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or in part as follows: a. Prior to Sale of Lots. Prior to the sale of any Lot (excluding any sale to a person or entity affiliated with Declarant), Declarant may terminate, extend, amend or revoke this Declaration as to the whole or any portion of the Property by recording in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document signed by the Declarant stating the action taken. b. After Sale of Lots but During Period of Declarant Control. After the sale of a Lot (excluding any sale to a person or entity affiliated with Declarant) but before expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant may terminate, extend, amend or revoke this Declaration in whole or in part. A copy of the document stating the action intended to be taken by the Declarant and a notice of the Owner rights under this Section shall be mailed to each Owner by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the address of Owner in the records of the Association. Unless written objection is received by Declarant from the Owners holding seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the votes within thirty (30) days of the mailing of notice to the Owners, the action proposed to be taken by the Declarant shall be considered approved and shall become final. The Declarant shall then record in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document stating the action taken, together with a certification that notice was given to the Owners as required herein and that fewer than seventy-five percent (75%) of the Owners objected to the action. c. After the Period of Declarant Control. After the Period of Declarant Control, this Declaration, or any provision of it, may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or any portion of the Property by the Declarant, unilaterally, pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.3. In addition, after the Period of Declarant Control, this Declaration, or any provision of it, may be terminated extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or any portion of the Property upon the written consent of Owners holding seventy percent (70%) or more of the votes of the Association. The amendment will be immediately effective upon the recording in the records of Flathead County, Montana, of a copy of the document together with a certification signed by an officer of the Association stating that the required number of consents of Owners was obtained. d. Declarant Approval. No termination, extension or amendment of this Declaration will be effective in any event during the Period of Declarant Control unless the written approval of Declarant is first obtained. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the abandonment of the Association's responsibility for the maintenance of the Common Area identified herein. 14 ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.1 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 or the Association, be deemed accepted, ratified, adopted and declared as a personal covenant of such Owner or Association, as the case may be, and as a personal covenant shall be binding on such Owner or Association and such Owner's or Association's respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns; (c) shall be deemed a covenant by Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, and also an equitable servitude running, in each case, as a burden with and upon the title to each Lot 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 Lot within the Subdivision, which lien with respect to any Lot shall be deemed a lien in favor of Declarant and/or the Association. Section 9.2 Enforcement and Remedies. The Declarant, the Association and/or any Owner or Owners of Lots shall have the right to enforce all covenants, conditions and restrictions now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. 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. Each provision contained in this Declaration shall be enforceable by the Association or by any Owner who has first made written demand on the Association to enforce such provision and 30 days have elapsed 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. Section 9.3 Limited Liability. The Declarant, the Association, or their respective officers, directors, employees or agents shall not be liable to any party 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 9.4 Successors and Assigns. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions contained in this Declaration shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant and each Owner and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Section 9.5 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 or any valid and enforceable part of a provision of this Declaration. Section 9.6 Captions. The captions and headings in this instrument are for convenience of reference only and shall not be considered in construing any provision of this Declaration. Section 9.7 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 plural, and vice versa. Section 9.8 No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision contained in this Declaration shall not operate as 15 a waiver of any such provision or of any other provision of this Declaration. Section 9.9 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 costs and attorneys' fees incurred. It is expressly understood by any person purchasing a Lot in this Subdivision that if an action is successfully brought against an Owner for a violation of the terms of this Declaration, that a reasonable attorneys' fee shall be assessed against the Owner in addition to costs and any other damages. DATED this day of , 2024. Whitetail Crossing, LLC By: As its: Manager STATE OF MONTANA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF FLATHEAD ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2024 by Manager of Whitetail Crossing, LLC. Notary Public for the State of Montana National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemapaccuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 1/3/2024 at 5:22 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximatepoint selected by the user and does not representan authoritative property location. 1:6,000 114°19'36"W 48°16'48"N 114°18'58"W 48°16'24"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Park E0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 127 126 125 124 123 128 129 130 131 132 133 203 204 205 206 207 214 213 212 211 210 209 215 216 229 228 227 226 230 232 233 234 249 248 247 246 245 224 223 222 221225 236 237 238 239235 243 242 241 240244 256 257 258 259255 269 268 267 266 265 263 262 261 260264 278 279 280 281 282 284 285 286 287283 327 326 311 310 312 309 313 308 307 306314 315 316 305 317 304 30310' Ped X i n g A 20' Ped X i n g B 291 290 289 288 292 293 294 91302 301 300 299 298 297 296 295 90 89 979695949392 339 340 341 342 343 344 348 347 346 345 Park F1.67 Ac. Park H3.21 Ac. Park G 1.48 Ac . Park A1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park D0.76 Ac. Park C (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park B1.43 Ac. 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 168 167 166 165 164 163 162 148 150 169 172 173 174 175 176 177 178170171 189 188 187 186 185 184 183190 194 195 197 198 199 200 202192193 30 31 32 33 34 35 8382818079 8485868788 1021011009998 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 270 271 272 273 274 275 3 2 1 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 208 217 218 219 220 231 250 251 252 253 254 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 276 277 149 158 160 159161 179 180 191 182 181 201196 26 25 23 22 21 20 1828271924 29 41 40 39 38 37 3642 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 546263 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 VICINITY MAP (Not to Scale) SUBJECT PROPERTY 110.557 Ac. U. S . H W Y 9 3 0.3 miles to intersection with U.S. Highway 93 0.3 miles to intersection with U.S. Highway 93 (along travelled way) Tron s t a d Mead o w s Whit e t a i l Cros s i n g W WOSWOSWOSW DYH S San ManholeDYH OSW Bush Bird House Tel.Ped Fire HydrantClosest to Subject Property Gate Valves Fire HydrantGate Valves Curb Stop Tel. Ped Tel. Ped Tel. MH, Tel. Ped & FiberOptic Marker (Mtn Max) Tel. Ped Tel. PedSign Tel. Ped Tel. Ped Elect. Pull Box GravelApproachGravelApproachesPavedApproachGravelApproachPavedApproach Shed0.5' west ofsubject prop. Elect. pull box Elect. pull boxTel. Ped Elect. pullbox Gravel Approach Mailbox Well &CurbStops Conc. Vault for UGPwr (no services) Building Tel. Ped Hose Bib PavedApproach Gra v e l R o a d GravelApproach Centerline of ~10'wide dirt road Centerline oftwo-track dirt road Water Line (6"metal pipe)goesundergroundheading south Elect.pull box Elect. Panel(meter & breakerboxes)Well Waterline (8" metal pipe) 1pipe heads north, 1 pipeheads east underground Waterline (6" metal pipe) Concrete Pad forirrigation center pivotPad Elev - 3031.1'Underground 3-phase power line Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2)Test Holes (2) Test Holes (2) Dirt Mound 3" & 1" Gray Conduit Stubs Fiber OpticMarker (Mtn Max) Fiber OpticMarker (Mtn Max) CarsonitePost-Gas LineMarker CarsonitePost - GasMarker There is a second communication line Tree Line - 2 rows of coniferous trees Tr e e L i n e - 1 o r 2 r o w s o f c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s T r e e L i n e - 1 o r 2 r o w s o f c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s 4' wood 3-rail fencealong Tronstad 4 ' w o o d p o s t f e n c e w i t h h o g w i r e 4' ChainlinkFence 4. 5 ' w o o d p o s t f e n c e w i t h h o g wi r e & 1 s t r a n d b a r b e d w i r e 4' wood slat fencewith channel posts6' wood slat fencewith channel posts 5' woodpicket fence 4' hog wire fencewith channel posts Gate "Spoils" Piles Located Fiber-opticline falls outside R/Wfrom this point andgoing west 11' to east edgeof spoils pile 9' Gate TBM Tel. PedElect. pullboxes S San ManholeSSan Manhole#1616 (See Detail on Sheet 2)#1615(Seedetail onSheet 2) Park A0.48 Ac. RoadReserve A0.45 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 40 41 42 4339 45 46 47 4844 60 61 62 6359 65 66 67 6864 69 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 8379 74 75 76 77 78 85 86 87 8884 89 109 110 124 111 123 112 122 121 120113 114 115 119 116 118 11710' Ped X i n g A 20' Ped X i n g B 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 140139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 141 142 143144145146147148 149 150 151 152 153 154 158 157 156 155 Park B1.68 Ac. Park C3.21 Ac. Park D1.57 Ac. Park E1.53 Ac. RoadReserve B0.23 Ac. Park F0.76 Ac. Park G (Utility Park)1.07 Ac. Park H1.43 Ac. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 22 24 33 46 47 48 49 50 51 524445 57 58 59 60 61 62 6356 68 69 71 72 73 74 766667 89 90 91 92 93 94 142141140139138 147146145144143 152151150149148 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Bandit Way (60' City Street) Crazy Horse Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) B o b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) A x i s W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) F a l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Tr o p h y S t r e e t ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Fa l l o w L o o p ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 180 181 182 Jack Rabbit Trail (60' City Street) Parachute Trail (60' City Street) Fallow Loop (60' City Street) Crow Trail (60' City Street) Op e n R a n g e T e r r a c e ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Browtine Street (60' City Street) Ousel Trail (60' City Street) Ap e x D r i v e ( 8 0 ' C i t y C o l l e c t o r S t r e e t ) Bo b t a i l W a y ( 6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) Ly n x P l a c e (6 0 ' C i t y S t r e e t ) 17 26 27 28 29 35 54 55 56 57 58 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 172 173 23 32 42 4341 53 54 55 64 65 7570 79 80 82 83 84 85 8777788681 88 96 97 98 99 100 10195 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122114113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 VICINITY MAP (Not to Scale) SUBJECT PROPERTY 110.557 Ac. U. S . H W Y 9 3 0.3 miles to intersection with U.S. Highway 93 0.3 miles to intersection with U.S. Highway 93 (along travelled way) Tron s t a d Mead o w s White t a i l Cros s i n g Church Dr US H ig h wa y 93 N S i lv e r b r o o k D r SilVerbrook Tronstad Rd W ern erPea k Trl L a z y C r e e k W a y SwedeTrl Hagerman Ln Highla n d D r US Hig hw a y 93 N 93 Wild Pine Ct Pondero s a Ln R ufenach L n Wh it e f ish S t a g e Tronstad Rd Freds Way Whitefish Trl Mannington St Po nde r osa Ln Sir u c ek L n R-3/PUD Residential With Pud R-4 Residential R-2/PUD Residential With Pud B-1/PUD Neighborhood Business With Pud RA-1/PUD Residential Apartment With Pud R-4/PUD Residential With Pud R-3 Residential B-1 Neighborhood Business B-2/PUD General Business With Pud Subject Parcel Data Sources: Montana Cadastral,Flathead County GIS City of Kalispell GIS, Austin Bachurski - 0 750 1500 2250375Feet¯ Subject Parcel B-1 Neighborhood Business B-1 Neighborhood Business w/ PUD B-2 General Business w/PUD R-2 Residential w/ PUD R-3 Residential R-3 Residential w/PUD R-4 Residential R-4 Residential w/PUD RA-1 Residential Apartment w/PUD Basemap: Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.com Kalispell Zoning Tronstad Meadows August 20, 2024 Church Dr US H ig h wa y 93 N S i lv e r b r o o k D r SilVerbrook Tronstad Rd W ern erPea k Trl L a z y C r e e k W a y SwedeTrl Hagerman Ln Highla n d D r US Hig hw a y 93 N 93 Wild Pine Ct Pondero s a Ln R ufenach L n Wh it e f ish S t a g e Tronstad Rd Freds Way Whitefish Trl Mannington St Po nde r osa Ln Sir u c ek L n Neighborhood CommercialSuburban Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Urban Mixed Use Suburban Residential Subject Parcel 0 750 1500 2250375Feet Kalispell Growth Policy Tronstad Meadows Data Sources: Montana Cadastral,Flathead County GIS City of Kalispell GIS, Austin Bachurski -¯ Subject Parcel Neighborhood Commercial Urban Mixed Use High Density Residential Suburban Residential Basemap: Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.comAugust 20, 2024 Church Dr US H ig h wa y 93 N S i lv e r b r o o k D r SilVerbrook Tronstad Rd W ern erPea k Trl L a z y C r e e k W a y SwedeTrl Hagerman Ln Highla n d D r US Hig hw a y 93 N 93 Wild Pine Ct Pondero s a Ln R ufenach L n Wh it e f ish S t a g e Tronstad Rd Freds Way Whitefish Trl Mannington St Po nde r osa Ln Sir u c ek L n Neighborhood CommercialSuburban Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Urban Mixed Use Suburban Residential Subject Parcel 0 750 1500 2250375Feet Kalispell Growth Policy Tronstad Meadows Data Sources: Montana Cadastral,Flathead County GIS City of Kalispell GIS, Austin Bachurski -¯ Annexation Boundary Subject Parcel Neighborhood Commercial Urban Mixed Use High Density Residential Suburban Residential Basemap: Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.comAugust 20, 2024 Franklin Way Donna Dr Highl a n d D r US H i g h w a y 93 N Tronstad Rd B a ne b e r r y L n G o ld e n ro d Ln US High w ay 9 3 N Hig hl a nd Dr Tronstad Rd Tronst a d L n P l ac idDr Wh i t e f i s h S t a g e Wh i t e f i s h S t a g e Tronstad Rd Plac i d Dr 0 480 960 1440240Feet Kalispell Mailing List ¯ Subject Parcel Mailing List Parcels Other Parcels Basemap: Esri Community Maps, ArcGIS.com Tronstad Meadows August 20, 2024 Data Sources: Montana Cadastral,Flathead County GIS City of Kalispell GIS, Austin Bachurski - Date 10/3/2024Calculated By: Kalispell Planning Department Land Type ResidentialNumber of acres proposed to be annexed:110.5Number of lots to be annexed:1Average square foot per lot:4,813,380Estimated taxable market value of individual properties to be annexed:$5,525,000Distance from nearest city maintained street light: >300ft 1. COST OF SERVICES UNDEVELOPED ACRES DEVELOPED ACRES COST/ACRE TOTAL Fire 111 0.00 ($263.39)$0.00 Police 111 0.00 ($353.77)$0.00General Gov't Services 111 0.00 ($314.77)$0.00 Subtotal $0.00 SERVICE NO. OF UNITS COST/UNIT TOTAL Roads (Linear feet of road to be maintained)1468.00 ($3.99)($5,857.23)Water (based on number of ERUs) 0.00 ($263.69)$0.00Sewer (based on number of ERUs)0.00 ($330.37)$0.00Stormwater (based on number of ERUs)0.00 ($77.61)$0.00Subtotal($5,857.23) TOTAL ANTICIPATED COST OF SERVICE =($5,857.23) 2. ANTICIPATED CITY ASSESSMENT REVENUE GENERATED Total square foot to be annexed:4,813,380Number of lots:1 ASSESSMENT AVE SQ FT ASSESSMENT TOTAL Storm sewer assessment:4,813,380 0.011151 242.88$ Street maintenance assessment:4,813,380 0.017776 387.00$ Urban forestry assessment:4,813,380 0.0047025 850.00$ Light maintenance assessment:4,813,380 0.00165 7,942.08$ Average annual water and sewer usage charge 0 $1,329.36 -$ TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM ASSESSMENTS and USAGE CHARGES = 9,421.96$ 3. TAX REVENUE Assessed value per property:$5,525,000 NO. OF UNITS ASSESSSED PROPERTY VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE Total assessed value:1 $5,525,000 5,525,000.00$ TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE REAL ESTATE TAX TAXABLE VALUE Total taxable value:$5,525,000 0.0135 74,587.50$ MILLS LEVIED TOTAL Total tax revenue:0.753 56,164.39$ TOTAL CITY TAX REVENUE=0.16558 12,350.20$ 4. IMPACT FEES UNIT QUANTITY COST PER UNITTotal Sewer Impact Fee:ERU 0 3,054.00$ $0.00Total Water Impact Fee:ERU 0 2,016.00$ $0.00Total Storm Impact Fee:ERU 0 618.00$ $0.00Total Police Impact Fee:Total Lots 0 41.000$ $0.00Total Fire Impact Fee:Total Lots 0 483.00$ $0.00 Total Project Impact Fee =$0.00 5. TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE GENERATED TO THE CITY (ITEMS 2 AND 3)$21,772.16 6. ONE TIME IMPACT FEE PAYMENT TO THE CITY (ITEM 4)$0.00 7. ANTICIPATED COST OF SERVICE (ITEM 1)($5,857.23) 8. NET (COST) or REVENUE TO THE CITY PER YEAR (ITEM 2 AND 3 - ITEM 1)$15,914.92 ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICES ANALYSIS (Initial Annexation) Project Name: Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Annexation Date 10/3/2024Calculated By: Kalispell Planning Department Land Type ResidentialNumber of acres proposed to be annexed:110.5Number of lots to be annexed:355Average square foot per lot:8,253Estimated taxable market value of individual properties to be annexed:$500,000Distance from nearest city maintained street light: >300ft 1. COST OF SERVICES UNDEVELOPED ACRES DEVELOPED ACRES COST/ACRE TOTAL Fire 0 110.50 ($263.39)($29,104.98) Police 0 110.50 ($353.77)($39,091.59)General Gov't Services 0 110.50 ($314.77)($34,782.02) Subtotal ($102,978.59) SERVICE NO. OF UNITS COST/UNIT TOTAL Roads (Linear feet of road to be maintained)22300.00 ($3.99)($88,975.68)Water (based on number of ERUs) 355.00 ($263.69)($93,608.67)Sewer (based on number of ERUs)355.00 ($330.37)($117,280.54)Stormwater (based on number of ERUs)355.00 ($77.61)($27,552.70)Subtotal ($327,417.59) TOTAL ANTICIPATED COST OF SERVICE =($430,396.17) 2. ANTICIPATED CITY ASSESSMENT REVENUE GENERATED Total square foot to be annexed:2,929,815Number of lots:355 ASSESSMENT AVE SQ FT ASSESSMENT TOTAL Storm sewer assessment:8,253 0.011151 242.88$ Street maintenance assessment:8,253 0.017776 387.00$ Urban forestry assessment:8,253 0.0047025 38.81$ Light maintenance assessment:8,253 0.00165 13.62$ Average annual water and sewer usage charge 355 $1,329.36 471,922.80$ TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM ASSESSMENTS and USAGE CHARGES = 714,141.85$ 3. TAX REVENUE Assessed value per property:$500,000 NO. OF UNITS ASSESSSED PROPERTY VALUE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE Total assessed value:355 $500,000 177,500,000.00$ TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE REAL ESTATE TAX TAXABLE VALUE Total taxable value:$177,500,000 0.0135 2,396,250.00$ MILLS LEVIED TOTAL Total tax revenue:0.753 1,804,376.25$ TOTAL CITY TAX REVENUE=0.16558 396,771.08$ 4. IMPACT FEES UNIT QUANTITY COST PER UNITTotal Sewer Impact Fee:ERU 355 3,054.00$ $1,084,170.00Total Water Impact Fee:ERU 355 2,016.00$ $715,680.00Total Storm Impact Fee:ERU 355 618.00$ $219,390.00Total Police Impact Fee:Total Lots 355 41.000$ $14,555.00Total Fire Impact Fee:Total Lots 355 483.00$ $171,465.00 Total Project Impact Fee =$2,205,260.00 5. TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE GENERATED TO THE CITY (ITEMS 2 AND 3)$1,110,912.92 6. ONE TIME IMPACT FEE PAYMENT TO THE CITY (ITEM 4)$2,205,260.00 7. ANTICIPATED COST OF SERVICE (ITEM 1)($430,396.17) 8. NET (COST) or REVENUE TO THE CITY PER YEAR (ITEM 2 AND 3 - ITEM 1)$680,516.75 ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICES ANALYSIS (Full Buildout) Project Name: Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Annexation Rail, Transit and Planning Division Phone: (406) 444–3423 Fax: (406) 444–7671 An Equal Opportunity Employer Toll–free: (800) 714–7296 TTY: (800) 335–7592 Web Page: www.mdt.mt.gov 2701 Prospect ▪ PO Box 201001 Helena MT 59620-1001 Christopher Dorrington, Director October 9, 2024 City of Kalispell Attn: City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Subject: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossings Subdivision Dear City of Kalispell Council Members, The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has drafted this letter to the City of Kalispell Council upon request by the developer of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossings Subdivision. The developer has proposed a residential project on approximately 110 acres of property located east of Highway 93 and along the north side of Tronstad Road in Kalispell, Montana. To mitigate the impacts from traffic generated by this proposed development at the intersection of US 93 and Tronstad Road MDT has conceptually agreed to the following improvements: Required improvements will be the installation of the traffic signal and any needed ADA or pedestrian facilities at the intersection of Tronstad Road and Highway 93. MDT considers the proposed improvements as permittable actions in MDT right of way. MDT is also open to partial signal installation (signal infrastructure – including all components except the poles, arms and signal heads, realignment of lanes, turn lanes, etc.) by the developer to full signal installation following MDT practices and procedures, and with additional coordination with MDT. The developer will design and prepare construction plans for these improvements and construct these improvements. The developer will continue to work through MDT System Impact Action Policy Coordinator to conduct the review and approval of these design plans as well as obtain any permits required from MDT. MDT will coordinate with the developer and the City of Kalispell to approve these plans. Furthermore, MDT agrees to participate in the cost of realigning the left turn lanes on Highway 93 at the Tronstad Road intersection. Final approval of these plans and the associated permit(s) is expected by MDT. Construction of the signal improvements will be guaranteed financially by an agreement between the developer and MDT. We hope that this letter will be accepted by the Council and provide sufficient assurances regarding MDT permits to allow the developer to satisfy the City of Kalispell’s conditions of approval for the developer’s project. MDT understands the importance of developing additional housing in the City of Kalispell, Flathead County and the State of Montana. To that end, MDT is interested in partnering with the City of Kalispell, Flathead County and neighboring communities to develop a plan for MDT roadways in the Greater Kalispell Area. This would include intersection locations, intersection control types and how Rail, Transit and Planning Division Phone: (406) 444–3423 Fax: (406) 444–7671 An Equal Opportunity Employer Toll–free: (800) 714–7296 TTY: (800) 335–7592 Web Page: www.mdt.mt.gov access to MDT Highways will be administered. This plan would provide future developers with clear expectations for access to MDT Highways. Brittany Cotton is available for any questions you may have regarding MDT permits and the SIAP Process, she can be reached at (406) 444-6126 or bcotton@mt.gov. I am available for any questions you may have and can be reached at (406) 250-0608. Sincerely, Bob Vosen, P.E. Missoula District Administrator copies: Dwane Kailey, P.E. Chief Operating Officer Rob Stapley, Planning Division District Administrator Joel Boucher, P.E., Missoula Preconstruction Justun Juelfs, Kalispell Area Maintenance Chief Rebecca Anderson, P.E., Kalispell Area Traffic Engineer Stan Brelin, P.E., Traffic Operations Engineer Brittany Cotton, SIAP Coordinator LeRoy Wosoba, SIAP Section Supervisor From:Barry Bunn To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Rd Rezone Date:Monday, September 2, 2024 8:41:04 PM My name is Barry Bunn and my wife Anita and I live in Quail Meadows. We would like to formally register a protest concerning the new application for the high density zoning in Tronstad Meadows. Here are several points I would like to make in support of our opposition. 1) A tremendous increase in traffic on Tronstad Rd. a) During construction of this proposed high density project there would be thousands of trips by heavy trucks. Primarily concrete trucks, tractors and lumber trucks. Those would create tremendous damage to an already highly traveled inferior road. Not to mention The safety of passenger vehicles meeting these much much larger vehicles. 2) Thousands of trips weekly by residents of the proposed subdivision. For example—if each household only made one trip out and back daily there would be 4970 additional cars added to the road weekly. The road absolutely can not support that much traffic. 3) Hwy 93/ Tronstad Rd is already a dangerous intersection and with thousands of additional cars weekly safety will be greatly compromised. 4) The intersection with Whitefish Stage Rd will become a bottleneck for those that want to go south to avoid 93. The traffic on Whitefish Stage and West Reserve is already a nightmare at times. It would also push a lot more traffic onto Rose Crossing. 5) The current zoning of approximately 40 homes would be ideal for the traffic situation as well as insuring the ability of the city to have a reasonable growth not an excess expansion that might be more burden than benefit. Finally, having lived most of my life living in Georgia we saw communities being destroyed by development that was done strictly for development sake. Now life is miserable there because of traffic gridlocks and absolutely no sense of community like here in Kalispell. I feel that each of you know what a special area this is and how important it is to protect not only the current beauty and way of life but also looking forward to how this type decision would effect the quality of life in the valley. Thank you for your time and consideration. Barry and Anita Bunn 3423 Goldenrod Ln 404-234-3702 From:Michelle Dauenhauer To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Friday, September 6, 2024 2:02:01 PM To: Kalispell Planning Board members My wife and I have lived on Highland Drive for almost 35 years. We are adamantly opposed to the subdivision. Off Tronstad Rd. We attended all the previous planning board meetings andpublic comment sessions. The developer, Frank Garner, and associates did not seem to accept the message that the Tronstad Meadows subdivision was voted down by the planning boardmembers for reasons such as Tronstad being unable to handle the kind of traffic the subdivision will bring. The lack of enough water up here in this are to supply the newsubdivision as the Kalispell city water is apparently contaminated by PFAS is also a big factor. We don't want to have a dry well. It appears they are attempting to propose a few lesshomes in said subdivision but all the problems that come with it remain. Please VOTE NO and stop this problem before it starts. Thank you Ken DauenhauerMichelle Dauenhauer From:MELISSA LOVEJOY To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Public Comment Re: September 10th planning board meeting Date:Sunday, September 8, 2024 11:39:20 AM How Dumb Do You Think We Are? Don’t Approve This Pathetic Proposal Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, My husband and I grew up in Kalispell and our parents still live in Kalispell. We are a growing family who have a serious question for you: How dumb do you think the residents of Kalispell and the Flathead Valley are? We grew up here, and while we've moved away for now, we’d love to move back and settle in the place that shaped who we are. But seeing applications like the one for Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing makes us wonder if developers—and maybe even the city— are taking the community's intelligence and safety for granted. The Same Problems, A 7% Change. Seriously? The fact that the developers of Tronstad Meadows have come back with a proposal for 355 lots instead of 380—literally a 7% reduction—is almost an insult. The safety, traffic, infrastructure, and road congestion issues that caused the City Council to reject the R-3 zoning and 380 lots three months ago have not been addressed in any meaningful way. All they’ve done is shave off a few lots. Does that somehow make the intersections safer? Does it fix the dangerous, narrow Tronstad Road? Does it magically improve infrastructure to handle the 3,300 cars per day this development will bring? Spoiler alert: It doesn’t. Don’t Lose the Respect of Homeowners You represent the people who live, work, and raise families in this community. Approving a proposal that has done virtually nothing to address the reasons it was shot down in the first place would make the city look foolish. You’re risking losing the respect of homeowners and taxpayers who expect their concerns to be taken seriously, not brushed aside with a token reduction in lots. We’re talking about real safety issues here: blind hills, deep ditches, narrow roads, intersections that can’t handle the traffic, and a laughable “pork chop” turn lane at Highway 93 that’s already unsafe. "Solutions" That Don't Solve Anything The developer claims they’ll put up a bond for a traffic light eventually—but there’s no guarantee on when, or even if, that light will ever go in. Meanwhile, they’re suggesting piecemeal road improvements only in front of the subdivision and connecting it to Quail Meadows subdivision, leaving the rest of Tronstad Road unimproved, creating dangerous bottlenecks. What good is that? This application just recycles the same bad ideas and hopes the planning board , city council, and community won’t notice. Don’t Approve a Plan That Ignores Real Problems We know Kalispell is growing, and we’re not against smart development. But this isn’t smart, it’s reckless. Developers who aren’t willing to make substantive changes and investments to ensure the safety of the community shouldn’t get a pass just because they come back with 7% fewer lots. The problems are still there—and they’ll only get worse. We urge you not to approve this application. Listen to the people who live here and love this valley. Don’t put them at risk for the sake of a poorly thought-out subdivision. We want to move back to a Kalispell that takes the safety and well-being of its residents seriously, not one that rubber stamps developments that create more problems than they solve. Thanks for listening—and for making a decision that actually makes sense. Ryder & Melissa Day Former (& hopefully) future residents of Kalispell, MT From:Aimee Brunckhorst To:Kirstin Robinson; PJ Sorensen; Jarod Nygren Subject:FW: EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing - Against Plat Proposal Date:Monday, September 9, 2024 8:38:16 AM From: Kristine Hursh <ckhursh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 6:51 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing - Against Plat Proposal Honorable Mayor Johnson & Kalispell City Council Members, We appreciated your discussion on June 17 and your concern for public safety and inappropriate density that helped the city council make the decision to turn down the previous plat for the 380 house development proposed across the street from our home on Tronstad Road. The developer has come back with a proposal that is still a very high density island in the middle of a very rural area. Taking 25 lots out of the previous proposal doesn't fix the neighborhood concerns. 200 to 250 houses on the 110 acres sounds more responsible - the developers will still make lots of money. Those houses could still be on city services, no need for septic tanks. Tronstad and Whitefish Stage Roads are narrow county roads with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. These roads are not ready for the additional traffic that 355 new houses would add, not to mention all the construction traffic to develop this 110 acre parcel. Tronstad was torn up for a long time when Quail Meadows development went in and that was only 10 acres with 39 houses. With the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing they plan to phase in this giant development over many years - Phase 1: 2025-2026, Phase 2: 2026-2027, Phase 3: 2029, Phase 4: 2031. We are very concerned if this proposal is accepted. Can the density change in the future to include apartment complexes or other multifamily dwellings? Are there any assurances that this development will only ever be single family homes into the future? There is so much building already going on in the valley - just adding more won't make this development affordable. Reserve, Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage should be improved before this development proceeds. The developer's proposal to "improve Tronstad Road" ONLY applies to this development's frontage on Tronstad - what about the whole length of Tronstad from Highway 93 to Whitefish Stage? The existing well being shared with the city, as proposed, is problematic, there are others that have water rights. Also - the community on Tronstad is serviced by individual wells. With the existing well on the property servicing 355 new houses and the city of Kalispell - will our wells go dry? Will there be any recourse for us? Has that been evaluated? A traffic signal is discussed in the proposal, it is still up to MDOT to actually put it in. It could be decades before we have any relief from the inadequate infrastructure that exists now. The developers can tear up Tronstad Road and put their lots in for 710+ additional people and just walk away. We still need to live here. There will be increased safety concerns, inadequate roads, traffic congestion and possible water issues that will affect us for many years into the future. The existing infrastructure can not support the density proposed. Add snow removal and drifts in the winter and it will be a big mess. Tronstad has weight limits for parts of the year. Emergency services will be an issue also. The only access to this development is Tronstad Road. Please reject this plat proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Kristine & Kevin Hursh 210 Tronstad Road, Kalispell 406-253-5199 From:PJ Sorensen To:Aimee Brunckhorst; Jarod Nygren Cc:Kirstin Robinson Subject:RE: EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Thursday, September 5, 2024 4:41:36 PM Aimee- Could you please include Kirstin on any of the forwarded emails for Tronstad? She has set up a file for them. Thanks! -- PJ -----Original Message----- From: Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 4:35 PM To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com> Subject: FW: EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing -----Original Message----- From: Jill Lamb <jilllamb5@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 2:39 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing My name is Jill Lamb, I live at 62 Tronstad Lane, Kalispell. I am voicing my concerns regarding the above noted development. I am not opposed to development in this valley, however I still think this is a high density sub division and 350 homesites is still too many. Please consider the rural community that surrounds this area, as well as the many concerns that have been brought forth at previous meetings. Everyday I travel on Tronstad Rd, entering and exiting, to Hwy 93, or Whitefish Stage Rd. Every time I do so, feel there are hazards and safety issues. The gravel at Hwy 93 and Tronstad is an example of a safety concern. These issues need to be addressed before going forward with such a large development. Infrastructure seems like a no brainer as this valley grows. Again, please consider the growing valley, the many concerns folks have brought forward, safety, volume of drivers, and the rural environment of our North community. Please vote no on this. Thank you. Sincerely, Jill Lamb Sent from my iPad From:Ming Lovejoy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Sept 10 Work Session PUBLIC COMMENT - Opposition to Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing rezoning Date:Tuesday, September 3, 2024 5:35:23 PM Kalispell City Planning Board 201 1st Ave E Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Members of the Kalispell City Planning Board, We are homeowners and taxpayers in the city of Kalispell as well as homeowners in the county and are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows, Whitetail Crossing (TMWC) under the updated R2 zoning application. While the developers have adjusted their proposal from R3 to R2 zoning, this change fails to address the critical issues that led to the City Council's rejection of the R3 zoning and preliminary plat in June. The issues of safety, inadequate road infrastructure, and traffic management remain unresolved and pose significant risks to our community. Safety Concerns on Tronstad Road During Buildout: The developers’ plan to build TMWC in phases does not mitigate the safety issues on Tronstad Road. This phased approach will still require construction traffic and residents to navigate an inadequate road with blind hills and steep ditches. The developers’ proposal to widen and improve only the section of Tronstad Road directly in front of their subdivision and connect it to Quail Meadows does not address the remaining half-mile of Tronstad Road to the east. This portion of the road, characterized by blind hills and steep ditches, remains unimproved, increasing the danger for all road users. The intersection at Tronstad and Whitefish Stage is notoriously dangerous, with a history of fatalities. Larger vehicles, including cement trucks and heavy equipment used during construction, will exacerbate these dangers. Even current drivers in SUVs or pickup trucks drift into the oncoming lane and traffic due to the narrow configuration of the intersection. Allowing this development to proceed without addressing these critical issues is irresponsible and dangerous. Inadequate Road Infrastructure and Disjointed Maintenance: The developers' proposal results in a fragmented road maintenance plan, with city and county-maintained sections along Tronstad Road. The road would consist of a half-mile of unimproved county road to the east, a city-maintained section in front of TMWC, Koenig Subdivision, and Quail Meadows, followed by another county section, and finally a city- maintained section at the intersection with Highway 93. This inconsistency will create confusion, uneven road conditions, and increased safety risks. The current "pork chop" intersection at Highway 93 is particularly hazardous, lacking acceleration or deceleration lanes, and offering limited options for drivers traveling south. This setup forces drivers to make illegal left turns or dangerous U-turns, further complicating an already risky situation. The Church Drive option has its own set of hazards with poor visibility for traffic merging onto hwy 93 going south. Market Conditions and Questionable Need for New Development: Furthermore, with over 800 homes currently on the market in the Flathead Valley, ranging from $300,000 to $1.5 million, and many lots available or coming onto the market, even within a two-mile radius of TMWC, there is no pressing need for this new subdivision. The slowdown in the market and the extended time properties are staying on the market only underscore this point. With such a glut of available properties, why would the Planning Board rush to approve a new subdivision that will create traffic bottlenecks, dangerous road conditions, and unnecessary risks for our community? Failure to Meet Zoning Criteria and Responsibilities: May we remind you that your role as the Planning Board is not to fast-track poorly executed applications from out-of-state developers. And the city of Kalispell does not bear a primary obligation to a developer simply because it has received application fees. The Planning Board’s primary obligation should be to its residents and to its future community members to build strategically and avoid causing more problems than you solve. It is also to ensure a well-planned and built, safe and wonderful community for generations to come. Please approve and build with generations in mind. Your responsibility, according to the statutes that govern your decisions, is to ensure that zoning regulations: 1. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; 2. Promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and 3. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Additionally, when adopting zoning regulations, you must consider: The reasonable provision of adequate light and air; The effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems; The promotion of compatible urban growth; The character of the district and its suitability for particular uses; and Conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. Your stated purpose (on the City of Kalispell’s own website:https://www.kalispell.com/314/Planning-Commission ) is to improve the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of Kalispell citizens and to plan for future development in a manner that ensures: That highway systems are carefully planned; That new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities; That the needs of agriculture, industry, and business are recognized in future growth; That residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life; and That the community’s growth is commensurate with, and promotive of, the efficient and economical use of public funds. Conclusion: The proposed development under the R2 zoning application does not meet these criteria. The developers’ phased approach to build-out will not mitigate the significant safety risks posed by the current state of Tronstad Road. The piecemeal road improvements proposed will only create a patchwork of inconsistent road conditions, increasing safety risks. Furthermore, the current market conditions do not justify the need for a new subdivision, especially one that presents such substantial safety hazards. We strongly urge the Planning Board to reject this application and prioritize the safety and well-being of our existing and future residents. We have the opportunity to ensure that Kalispell grows in a manner that is safe, sustainable, and aligned with the community's needs and values. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Ming and Dan Munzing 213 Tronstad Road & 139 East Swift Creek Way September 4, 2024 Dear Kalispell City Major and Council/Planning Commission, I am Brenda Oberlitner, residing at 36 Wintercrest Ridge, Kalispell Montana, directly north of proposed development of 355 housing project known as Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing. Prior applica�� of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing project of 380 homes was denied by Kalispell City Council June 17,2024. Tr��c safety concerns surrounding the high density that the development would bring to U.S Highway 93 and White�sh Stage Road was the number one reason for denial of this development/applica�on. Councilman Jed Fisher Quoted “ From:Melanie Lovejoy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Concerns: Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing Date:Saturday, September 7, 2024 10:51:41 PM The Pellews 1212 Longfellow Kalispell MT 59901 Melanielovejoy1@gmail.com 9/6/2024 Kalispell Planning Board City of Kalispell 201 1st Ave E Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, We are writing as a young couple and homeowners in the city of Kalispell to express our strong opposition to the current application for Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing. We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of this development on our community’s safety, infrastructure, and overall quality of life. The revised application for R-2 zoning with a PUD and 355 lots is only a slight reduction from the original proposal of 380 lots under R- 3 zoning, and it does not adequately address the significant issues that led the City Council to reject the original plan in June 2024. The initial decision to reject the R-3 zoning and 380 lots was based on serious concerns about the inadequate road and intersection infrastructure in this area. Tronstad Road, with its narrow lanes, steep ditches, blind hills, and dangerous intersections at Whitefish Stage Road and the poorly designed "pork chop" 3/4 turn lane at Highway 93, continues to be a major safety hazard. The slight reduction in the number of lots from 380 to 355 does little to mitigate these dangers. Furthermore, both the current and previous applications have mentioned that the developer would provide a bond to cover the cost of a traffic light when needed. However, there is no clear timeline or assurance of when this traffic light will actually be installed, leaving us in limbo and potentially facing prolonged periods of unsafe conditions. The misalignment between Silverbrook Boulevard and Tronstad Road also presents unresolved risks that could complicate traffic patterns and further endanger residents. Even if the development proceeds with a phased build-out, the projected 3,300 vehicle trips per day would place immense pressure on Tronstad Road, which already faces weight restrictions for four months out of the year. The developer’s proposal to only improve the section of Tronstad Road directly in front of their subdivision, while leaving significant portions to the east and west unimproved, would create a dangerous bottleneck. Even with hundreds of extra car trips and the equipment and heavy trucks that even phase one of this project would require, the proposed application and approach fails to provide a safe, sustainable solution for both existing residents and potential new homeowners. Additionally, given the current state of the real estate market in the valley—with hundreds of homes and lots already on the market—there is no urgent need to rush into approving a development that presents so many unresolved issues. Unlike other well-planned subdivisions in the area that have proper access and egress, the Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing proposal falls short of the standards needed to ensure a safe, walkable, and bikeable community. Please consider the implications of attempting to build out a subdivision with 355 lots on an inadequately improved county road with dangerous intersections and no reliable plan or timeline for addressing these critical safety issues. Moving forward without resolving these problems could create hazardous conditions that endanger lives and lead to costly fixes down the road. This goes against the city’s goal of fostering safe, vibrant, and connected communities. We respectfully ask that the Planning Board and City Council prioritize the safety and well- being of Kalispell residents by either rejecting this application or imposing strict conditions that require comprehensive infrastructure improvements. Let’s make sure that any new development truly aligns with our vision for a safe and thriving Kalispell. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Melanie & Hamish Pellew Melanie Pellew (Lovejoy)4062614307 From:Daniel Pierson To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Proposal Date:Thursday, September 5, 2024 11:08:34 AM Dear Sirs/Madams… My name is Dan Pierson and along with my wife, Terri Pierson, we want to express our significant concern regarding this massive proposal to build 355 houses on the 110 acre parceloff Tronstad Rd. I am sure all of you remember just a few months back when this ill conceived idea to bring 380 houses to this acreage moving it away from the existing one houseper 2.5 acres to a massively condensed plan that looks closer to residential Los Angeles than rural Kalispell, Montana. The outcry from the community was so overwhelming to point to a long shopping list ofreasons why it was a bad idea is still in effect. The notion that the developer is lowering the houses from 380 to 355 is a joke and really not worthy of coming back to the table fornegotiations and putting everyone back into this process. We were at the first public meeting at City Hall last time and the voice of the people who live in this community presented countless reasons why this proposal should be denied. Thosereasons have not gone away and will be rehashed again in this coming exercise. Our prayer is that common sense will prevail on the part of our community leaders and keep the existing “house per acreage” the way it is now…1 house per 2.5 acres. Please do not turn our beautiful rural Montana into a copy of residential Los Angeles,California. Respectfully, Daniel and Terri Pierson 3307 Whitefish Stage, Kalispell, MT 59901danterri@comcast.net From:Mari Sisneros To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Re-Zone #2 Date:Sunday, September 8, 2024 7:07:24 PM We are sending this email to go on record that we are completely opposed to the re-zoning request to a large development on Tronstad Road.As with the previous attempt, this neighborhood is still not able to handle this large development. Nothing has changed in the inadequate infrastructure to handle the added traffic,safety or demand on the neighborhood. Please take a moment to remember this is an open, rural area with agriculture and ranchingfamilies. Tony and Marian Sisneros 136 From:Ben Konkel To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Planned 110 Acre Subdivision on Tronstad Road ie: Tronstad Meadows Date:Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1:05:53 PM I am a homeowner located at 345 Sirucek Lane, and I am writing (because I can't be ta the meting tonight) to express my vehement opposition to this planned project. My reasonsinclude all of the heretofore expressed reasons, i.e.inadequate infrastructure, increased taxes, safety of surrounding roads, etc. But also, current zoning creates the culture and rural livingexistence of the area, which is exactly why I bought into this area 3 years ago. The lifestyles that exist here are made possible by the current zoning. The proposed change in zoning wouldchange the face of this area to something not compatible with current use. It is immoral and unethical to adversely impact the face of this area, forever changing the culture of this area,such culture having been the very reason most of the residents of this area have made their most significant life time investment here. I wholeheartedly advise against these changes for which you are being solicited toaccommodate a single person/entity for a very specific use that does not conform to the heretofore planned use of this area and its zoning. Sincerely,Bernard and Mary Konkel 406-250-7244 Virus-free. www.avg.com Jeffrey Muller Kalispell, Mt 59901 Regarding Tronstad Proposed Develment R-2 PUD Planning Board Members, I am writing to you in opposition of this Development as it is Proposed. The previous application for 380 homes R3 was rejected due to numerous deficiencies called out by all the concerned citizens of Flathead County and City residents. The latest proposal does little to satisfy all or any of the problems. The Developer in my opinion has moved forward with the latest application R-2 PUD based solely on the City Councils move prior to their voting to change and approve the application as an R2 development. The City attorney quickly argued that it was not their place to act as the developer and do so. Nevertheless, the seed was planted that if applied for they would most likely get approved. I would like to clarify to the planning board that when R2 was brought up in comments, it was being referred to as that of the Silverbrook Development which is 10,000 sq. ft lots, Not the 5000 sq. ft. lots now applied for. Silverbrook Development was brought up numerous times and praised for it’s well thought out masterplan which included ingress and egress infrastructure, Bike paths, etc creating a very Safe environment. This development does little to compare to Silverbrook. The City Planners have an obligation to the residents of the Flathead Count and the City to push for these conditions and much much more. From:McKenzie Koenig To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing Round 2 Date:Tuesday, September 10, 2024 3:15:47 PM To whom it may concern: My name is McKenzie Koenig. I reside at 355 Tronstad Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901 I am writing to share my hesitation upon hearing about the Tronstad Meadows/WhitetailCrossing proposed development. Reviews have been made I understand and my concern still stands that the infrastructure, roads, schools, etc., are not set up for this development in thisarea. Edgerton school, where this proposed development would zone in, currently has to bus 4th graders to a different school because there is no more room. I am curious what a conversationwould look like between the developer and Edgerton/KMS/Glacier High School. What would these principals say in response to more kids attending these schools? Are they set up andprepared for this? Kind regards, McKenzie Koenig From:michele taylor To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Opposition to tronstad development Date:Tuesday, September 10, 2024 4:06:38 PM Good afternoon, I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed tronstad development. As you know, this development was recently rejected by the city council. This new applicationfails to address the primary issues for the previous rejection. 1. The density of the currently proposed development continues to be too high in consideration of the agricultural characteristics of the surrounding area. 2. There have been no traffic accommodations made in order to support the proposed volume of homes. An additional point that was never brought up at the previous discussions with respect to theproposed traffic light on highway 93. The intersection on highway 93 where they are proposing installing a traffic light is malaligned. The exit to the silverbrook development andthe the entrance to tronstad road off 93 are not aligned. This means that property would need to be acquired in order to properly align the proposed signal light. I'm sure there would also bea multiple other considerations in order to make this intersection safe for the public. In addition to the above mentioned issues, there are also the numerous concerns of the surrounding community members. Although this seemed to be of minimal concern in theprevious decision making, I do believe it is imperative that city council and planning commission remember that they are representatives of the community. I would certainly hopethat they would take community concerns into consideration in their decision making. Sincerely, Michele Taylor 1210 Birch Grove road Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer From:G Mose To:Kalispell Planning Board Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad/ Whitetail Proposal Date:Thursday, September 12, 2024 11:38:41 AM My name is Gary Moses and I live at 684 Jackson View Trail which is about 1/4 mile south of the Whitefish Stage/ Tronstad intersection. Although I was unable to attend the work session, I feel compelled to comment after havingwatched the video of the work session held 9/10/24. As I stated in comments to prior meetings, the density of this project is vastly excessive to the existing road infrastructure, hence safety of the area. To have the second proposal only reducethe number of lot/dwellings by about 6.5% does not actually reflect the neighborhood concerns that led to the first proposal being stalled. It is just too big. Having lived at my residence for over 26 years, I understand the neighborhood would change.I had no objections to the numerous homes developed on Mannington (between my residence and Tronstad WF Stage intersection). That was incremental and reasonable expansion whereasWhitetail is far excessive for the Tronstad/WF Stage intersection. That intersection seems an after thought in the developer and planners reviews. Focus is almost exclusively onTronstad/93 junction. As Keith Haskins stated in the meeting, 'the longest delays on Tronstad will be in the westbound direction because that's the predominant way of traffic heading into town'. Whilethat is correct, it does not capture that human nature of the residents of this proposal who will be frustrated with the delay, then switch to alternately use Tronstad/WF Stage which is illprepared to handle that increase of traffic. Narrow road with deep ditches define WF Stage, and at that intersection a rise in WF Stage to the north block the view of drivers turning eitherway off Tronstad. I have nearly been hit there several times as traffic coming south on WF Stage, even at the 50 MPH speed limit (or over) are upon a vehicle accelerating from that stopsign very quickly. That intersection is not ready for the influx of traffic this proposal brings. IF road infrastructure of WF Stage north of Rose Crossing had been upgraded the way the WF Stage/ Birch Grove intersection was widened and upgraded, I would not be opposed to theproject. Until that happens, infrastructure and safety must take priority and this proposal should either be postponed or brought back with SIGNIFICANT size reduction, not a paltry25 unit decrease. I also suggest a second traffic study, not done in mid winter but mid summer, should be completed to give an accurate representation of the traffic movements and provide an equalemphasis on both of the intersections, not just US 93. The lack of forethought shown by doing a traffic study mid winter should be a disqualifying factor itself! Based on some statistics about Montana residence, it appears about 26% of homes havechildren, so at build out this project would be adding about 100 children to the area who would be put as serious risk of injuries or death from traffic collisions if this project moved forwardprior to road infrastructure upgrading. That is not acceptable, and is not the Montana way of caring for the next generation. Thank you for hearing my concerns which are echoes of some other citizens who attended thework session. I would like acknowledgement of receipt of my comments, and give permission for any of the Kalispell Planning Commission or Kalispell City Council to contact me regarding this issue. Sincerely,Gary Moses 684 Jackson View TrailKalispell, MT 59901 406 471 0665 Mobilt13@gmail.com From:Jill Lamb To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad and Whitetail development Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:10:45 PM Planning Department My letter to you is to voice an objection to this proposed development on Tronstad Rd in Kalispell. Many folks have spoken up and voiced concerns, I have the same concerns. Safety is the most important concern and Tronstad Rd is not very safe now. Besides the high ditches, it is narrow, has poor access, people do not drive 35 mph, as well as the blind hills that exist on either side of Tronstad Lane, where I reside. Every day vehicles are excelerating to these blind hills. Please consider this high density, over the top development and see that the safety of this community is put first and vote no at this time. Sincerely, Jill Lamb 62 Tronstad Lane From:Ming Lovejoy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Re: Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 9:51:21 PM Attachments:Screenshot 2024-05-30 at 8.55.27 AM.png [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, As concerned homeowners and taxpayers in the City of Kalispell and Flathead County, we strongly oppose the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, particularly the updated R-2 zoning with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). While we understand Montana's ambitious goal to build 15,000 homes over the next decade, growth must be approached responsibly, ensuring it aligns with Kalispell's Growth Policy and the Planning Board's core responsibilities. Cramming the equivalent of Browning’s population onto a 110.5-acre 'island' subdivision of 355 lots, with sole ingress and egress onto and off of an unimproved county road, while hopscotching city services, isn’t community-building—it’s short-sighted, profit-driven development. The developer isn’t investing in creating a sustainable, thriving neighborhood; they’re simply selling off lots. This feels like a hit-and-run strategy from an out-of-state developer with hundreds of subdivisions nationwide. The result? A quick win for them and a lasting loss for the future of Kalispell's city planning. Please take a look at this national map of the developers’ projects (from their own website): Your role, as defined in the Planning Board's job description on the kalispell website, is to safeguard the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of Kalispell's citizens. This includes: Careful planning of highway systems Ensuring adequate infrastructure for new developments Creating safe, healthy environments in residential areas Making efficient and responsible use of public funds Failure to uphold these responsibilities can have severe consequences, including: Increased Risk of Accidents and Liability: Poor traffic planning could lead to accidents, making the city liable for damages. Strain on Emergency Services: Inadequate roads and emergency access could delay response times, putting lives at risk. Public Backlash: Ignoring safety concerns erodes public trust in the Planning Board and City Council. Long-term Financial Burden: Poorly planned developments result in costly infrastructure upgrades, burdening taxpayers. Decreased Quality of Life: Compromising safety diminishes property values and livability. We strongly urge the Planning Board to prioritize the safety, sustainability, and quality of life for Kalispell residents. This development, as it stands, lacks the necessary road improvements, traffic safety measures, and emergency access—putting our community at risk. Please take a careful look at the skewed intersection of Hwy 93 & Tronstad Rd. and examine and question communications with the developer and individually with MDOT. When you do this, you’re likely to find notable discrepancies between what the developer states and what MDOT reports about the potential for installing a signal. Please don’t get hoodwinked! We’re counting on you to ask the hard questions and make sure you’re getting complete and satisfactory answers before you approve rezoning and preliminary plat on Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing. Approving this application and preliminary plat without addressing these critical issues would be irresponsible and reckless, and will endanger citizens, burden the city with future liabilities and erode public trust. We respectfully request that you deny the rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing until the developer provides clear, actionable solutions. Kalispell deserves thoughtful, long-term growth, not quick-profit projects from outside developers. We trust you will prioritize the safety and sustainability of Kalispell's future in your decision. Sincerely, Dan and Ming Munzing 213 Tronstad Rd. And 139 East Swift Creek Way, Kalispell From:Ming Lovejoy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Re: Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 9:51:21 PM Attachments:Screenshot 2024-05-30 at 8.55.27 AM.png [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, As concerned homeowners and taxpayers in the City of Kalispell and Flathead County, we strongly oppose the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, particularly the updated R-2 zoning with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). While we understand Montana's ambitious goal to build 15,000 homes over the next decade, growth must be approached responsibly, ensuring it aligns with Kalispell's Growth Policy and the Planning Board's core responsibilities. Cramming the equivalent of Browning’s population onto a 110.5-acre 'island' subdivision of 355 lots, with sole ingress and egress onto and off of an unimproved county road, while hopscotching city services, isn’t community-building—it’s short-sighted, profit-driven development. The developer isn’t investing in creating a sustainable, thriving neighborhood; they’re simply selling off lots. This feels like a hit-and-run strategy from an out-of-state developer with hundreds of subdivisions nationwide. The result? A quick win for them and a lasting loss for the future of Kalispell's city planning. Please take a look at this national map of the developers’ projects (from their own website): Your role, as defined in the Planning Board's job description on the kalispell website, is to safeguard the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of Kalispell's citizens. This includes: Careful planning of highway systems Ensuring adequate infrastructure for new developments Creating safe, healthy environments in residential areas Making efficient and responsible use of public funds Failure to uphold these responsibilities can have severe consequences, including: Increased Risk of Accidents and Liability: Poor traffic planning could lead to accidents, making the city liable for damages. Strain on Emergency Services: Inadequate roads and emergency access could delay response times, putting lives at risk. Public Backlash: Ignoring safety concerns erodes public trust in the Planning Board and City Council. Long-term Financial Burden: Poorly planned developments result in costly infrastructure upgrades, burdening taxpayers. Decreased Quality of Life: Compromising safety diminishes property values and livability. We strongly urge the Planning Board to prioritize the safety, sustainability, and quality of life for Kalispell residents. This development, as it stands, lacks the necessary road improvements, traffic safety measures, and emergency access—putting our community at risk. Please take a careful look at the skewed intersection of Hwy 93 & Tronstad Rd. and examine and question communications with the developer and individually with MDOT. When you do this, you’re likely to find notable discrepancies between what the developer states and what MDOT reports about the potential for installing a signal. Please don’t get hoodwinked! We’re counting on you to ask the hard questions and make sure you’re getting complete and satisfactory answers before you approve rezoning and preliminary plat on Tronstad Meadows Whitetail Crossing. Approving this application and preliminary plat without addressing these critical issues would be irresponsible and reckless, and will endanger citizens, burden the city with future liabilities and erode public trust. We respectfully request that you deny the rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing until the developer provides clear, actionable solutions. Kalispell deserves thoughtful, long-term growth, not quick-profit projects from outside developers. We trust you will prioritize the safety and sustainability of Kalispell's future in your decision. Sincerely, Dan and Ming Munzing 213 Tronstad Rd. And 139 East Swift Creek Way, Kalispell 1 PJ Sorensen From:Ming Lovejoy <minglovejoy1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 27, 2024 9:47 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Don’t Let the Wool Be Pulled Over Kalispell’s Eyes: Protect Our Community from Risky Development Dear Members of the Kalispell City Planning Board, As concerned homeowners and taxpayers in Kalispell and Flathead County, we strongly oppose the proposed Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing development, particularly the updated R2 zoning with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The minor reduction of just 25 homes from the previous proposal, which was rejected in June, fails to address the core concerns raised by both the community and the City Council. Superficial Changes, Same Problems Let’s be clear: this new application doesn’t solve the fundamental issues. It’s a slightly altered plan that tries to meet the bare minimum, not the actual needs of Kalispell. The developers themselves admitted during the work session that they adjusted the plan because they thought that’s what the city wanted. Really? Either the developer misunderstands the city’s expectations, or they believe we’ll blindly accept whatever’s put in front of us. Your Responsibility: Safeguard Kalispell’s Growth & Future Your responsibility, as Kalispell’s Planning Board, goes beyond greenlighting any development proposal that comes your way. You are tasked with ensuring safe highway systems, sufficient infrastructure, and creating communities that foster safety, health, and vibrancy. This isn’t just about approving growth—it’s about ensuring that any growth enhances Kalispell’s long-term welfare. Skewed Intersection: A Critical Issue with Many Unresolved Details One critical issue the developer appears to be glossing over is the dangerously skewed intersection at Highway 93 and Tronstad Road. They claim to be working with MDOT and suggest they have a “fix” for the skewing, but anyone who looks at that intersection knows it must be fully aligned to prevent serious accidents—especially in heavy fog or during one of the blinding snowstorms that plague our area every winter. These conditions happen regularly, yet we’re being asked to trust vague assurances. Key Questions: ·What are you really being told about definitive plans to align this intersection? ·What actually needs to be done? ·Does property need to be purchased or acquired from the landowner on the northeast corner to make this intersection viable and safe? ·What are the exact steps in this process? These are critical questions that demand clear, specific, measured answers before any approval can even be considered. Is the Developer Building a Community or Cashing Out? 2 With this already problematic proposal, we urge you to carefully scrutinize the details, as they expose the developer's true intentions. It didn’t take much to see through their “affordable housing” claim, which fell apart with just a few calculations and basic mortgage math. Then came the statement that approval must happen in "haste." Haste is a classic pressure tactic, more fitting for a used car salesman trying to close a deal before you consult your mechanic or spouse. The developers also seem to believe in the mentality of “build now, solve problems later.” This approach is not only shortsighted but reckless. As many of the neighboring residents have shown through thorough investigation, some of the issues plaguing this development may not be solvable at all. Let’s take the time to get it right, not rush to get it done. Rushing a project like this through the planning and approval process is like building a house with no foundation—sure, you can get it up quickly, but your life will be plagued with continuous long-term problems. Let’s take the time to ensure it’s done right from the start. When an out-of-state company buys land with the goal of selling off 355 lots as quickly as possible, with minimal regard for community or covenants, they are not building a community—they’re cashing out. That burden of thoughtful, responsible planning rests with you. MDOT and Traffic Concerns: An Unlikely Fix Consider this: MDOT is already focused on installing two new traffic lights north of Reserve Street on Hwy 93—one for the upcoming Costco development, set to open in 2025, and another at the Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing intersection. That’s already a major undertaking. Are we really expected to believe MDOT will prioritize yet another light just over a mile north, specifically for a 355-lot subdivision that’s still in the proposal stage? It’s unrealistic. Where is the proof MDOT intends to install a traffic signal at Tronstad Road? Conversations with MDOT representatives directly contradict the developers' claims about fast-tracking the traffic signal. Please ensure that any information provided comes with solid evidence to back it up. Overwhelming Tronstad Road: A Dangerous Path We also know the reality of Tronstad Road: three blind hills, winter snowdrifts, and a single entry/exit point into and out of the proposed subdivision, with NO potential for adding ingress and egress to the west, north or to the east. Hundreds of truck trips and heavy equipment will overwhelm an unimproved county road. This is a recipe for accidents, strain on emergency services, and future infrastructure costs that could burden taxpayers. Ask the Tough Questions: Protect Kalispell In short, don’t be fooled by vague promises or quick-fix changes. We urge you to ask the tough questions and get real answers before moving forward. This development threatens to jeopardize safety, lower property values, and degrade the quality of life for everyone in Kalispell. Growth is necessary, but only responsible growth will benefit our community for generations to come. Protect Kalispell's Future: Ensure Responsible Growth This is your opportunity to protect Kalispell from risky developments that make grand promises but fail to deliver on essential safety and sustainability measures. Now is the time to be vigilant, cautious, and deliberate in your decisions to safeguard our community’s future. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dan & Ming Munzing 213 Tronstad Rd. & 139 East Swift Creek Way Kalispell 1 PJ Sorensen From:lorrisworld@aol.com Sent:Saturday, September 28, 2024 6:31 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad proposed community Hello, I am writing to add my comments regarding another proposed community being developed on Tronstad Road. While I realize change is inevitable, I implore the planning committee to seriously consider all stakeholders, as well as lasting consequences this new development will have on our community. I ask the committee to reconsider, perhaps, the magnitude of the proposed new development. With over 300 plus new homes, the stress on our existing infrastructure is significant. Our country roads, Tronstad & whitefish Stage, will absorb an additional 700 vehicles traveling on them. Once this land has been destroyed, we can no longer get it back. My other concern is a potential downturn in the economy. While we see a need for additional housing now, what if we no longer need an additional 300 plus new homes? Lastly, in Ponderosa Estates we are being surrounded by development. What was once a beautiful, quiet community, is now roaring with machinery by 7AM daily. We endured the painful process of watching the eyesore water tower coming to life. We ask that you press the “pause” button on this project, to fully assess the long term damage it will cause in years to come. If development is inevitable, perhaps keep it realistic, with Montana style rustic homes on larger parcels, without streetlights (community behind us) or sidewalks. Respectfully, Stan & Lorri Krause Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 1 PJ Sorensen From:Jill Lamb <jilllamb5@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 29, 2024 1:44 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Development Sept 30, 2024 Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, I am writing to state my strong objection to the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing. As I have spoken to many neighbors about this development I have not come across anyone that believes this is a well intended bonus for our Kalispell community. The most significant concern is safety. The safety of traveling. Whether driving, walking, bike riding, exiting and entering driveways on Tronstad Rd., all are hazardous now. Imagine another 350-500 cars per day, imagine more traffic flow from other roadways that are congested, imagine more school bus traffic, more children exposed to this unimproved county road. In my mind it is unimaginable. My driveway is at the crest of the blind hill. Drivers are coming from Whitefish Stage and Hwy 93. From both directions they are accelerating toward this blind hill. It is scary to exit my driveway. It is also daunting at this time to turn East onto Tronstad Rd from Hwy 93 S, as there is no Rt turn lane, and gravel on the road due to the ditch that keeps forming from tires dropping off the road. I find myself driving forward, but looking in the rearview mirror as I gauge whether there are cars behind me as I turn off the highway and will they see my blinker and not rear end my car. No one wants to slow down! Nor is it safe to turn East from Hwy 93 N, as this intersection is offset with Silverbrook Estates. It’s a busy spot, only worsening with those busier times in the day. Of course, I can exit and enter Tronstad Rd from Whitefish Stage Rd. This is chaos as well. It is a very narrow intersection with cars zooming from the N, almost faster than one can look both ways! And with increased traffic from congestion southward it does not feel any safer taking this route. We need infrastructure first. More hazards that I have encountered: steep ditches on either side of the road, drifting snow in the winter and it may take hours for crews to clear, speeders, as well as having to drive through Ponderosa Estates due to closures of Tronstad during the many projects we have had on Tronstad Rd. It took 3 tries to get that “porkchop” done the way it is. Each time, we had delays and detours. I ask that you please consider the safety of our community by using sound judgement. I am not opposed to development in our area, but I do feel it needs to be accomplished with careful planning, adequate infrastructure in place and the efficient use of funds and the taxpayer money. Please consider first, the community and residents, before the wishes of the out of state developer. Sincerely, Jill Lamb 62 Tronstad Ln, Kalispell Sent from Mail for Windows 1 PJ Sorensen From:julie077a@centurytel.net Sent:Monday, September 30, 2024 8:49 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Re: Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, My name is Julie Campbell, and I own and live at 289 Sirucek Ln in Kalispell. I’m writing to strongly urge you to vote against the proposed Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing subdivision. While I understand the need for growth, this development raises serious concerns that will directly impact our community’s safety, traffic, and already strained infrastructure. 1. Public Safety is a Major Concern Tronstad Road is already a dangerous stretch, especially during winter months. I’ve seen it firsthand— cars sliding into ditches, vehicles abandoned in snowstorms, and emergency services struggling to keep up. Just this past winter, I saw multiple vehicles stranded near All Ways Storage, simply because the infrastructure can’t handle the current traffic and weather conditions. What will happen when you add 3,300 more vehicles per day? Our emergency services are already stretched thin. I know of people who were stranded during a snowstorm on Tronstad Road, and the police told them they couldn’t help unless there were injuries. This subdivision will only make that worse. It’s isolated, it’s an outlier, and first responders will have to drive farther to reach it, leading to delayed response times in emergencies. Is this the kind of risk we want to take? 2. Traffic is Already Out of Control Traffic in this area has worsened considerably. When I first moved here, Tronstad Road had minimal traffic. Now, it’s become a growing hazard. I’ve personally experienced speeding and reckless driving— just last summer, I was passed by two cars while driving the speed limit. The developer’s traffic study doesn’t reflect what we face every day. Without plans for serious improvements—like expanding the road or adding turn lanes—this project will only add more chaos to our roads. Our current infrastructure can’t support the kind of traffic this development will bring, and yet, no substantial upgrades are in the works. 3. The Infrastructure is Inadequate The infrastructure here is already lacking. Quick fixes like the pork chop at Tronstad and Highway 93 don’t solve the real issues. Tronstad Road is only 22 feet wide in places, far below the standard for a road that will see this much traffic. With steep ditches on both sides, it becomes especially dangerous in the winter when conditions are icy. 2 There’s also no guarantee that MDOT will make the needed improvements at the intersections of Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. These are already hazardous spots, and adding more traffic without clear, timely upgrades will only make them worse. 4. The Risk of Overdevelopment With 355 new lots, this development would create a dense island of congestion in an area that simply wasn’t built to handle it. There are no additional entry or exit points—meaning all traffic, including emergency vehicles, will funnel through the same narrow, poorly maintained roads. This is a logistical nightmare waiting to happen, especially in emergency situations when every second counts. We can’t afford to sacrifice safety, traffic flow, and infrastructure just to push through a development that benefits the developer more than the community. Please Develop Responsibly I ask the Planning Board to prioritize the safety and well-being of our community. Our infrastructure is not equipped to support this subdivision, and moving forward without addressing these concerns would be a mistake. Kalispell deserves thoughtful, responsible growth—not development that puts people’s lives at risk. Please vote NO on this proposal until the necessary infrastructure improvements are in place. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. Sincerely, Julie Campbell 1 PJ Sorensen From:Mae Osborne <mosborne124@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 2, 2024 2:16 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development Ladies and Gentemen, I am coming to you as one of the residents impacted by the proposed development addressed above. I remain opposed to this project! The concessions have been considered extensively, But significant issues such as safety in regard to ingress and egress have not been addressed. Traffic increase as well as lack of infrustructure are additional concerns. Let us be rational and reasonable for all. Sincerely, Mae Osborne 67 Tronstad Dr. 1 PJ Sorensen From:Mae Osborne <mosborne124@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 2, 2024 2:16 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development Ladies and Gentemen, I am coming to you as one of the residents impacted by the proposed development addressed above. I remain opposed to this project! The concessions have been considered extensively, But significant issues such as safety in regard to ingress and egress have not been addressed. Traffic increase as well as lack of infrustructure are additional concerns. Let us be rational and reasonable for all. Sincerely, Mae Osborne 67 Tronstad Dr. 1 PJ Sorensen From:Larry Silverbrook <larrysilverbrook@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 2, 2024 10:52 AM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Kalispell Planning Department, Dear Planning Board Members, I would like to express my concerns regarding the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing application. Although my home is not within the city limits of Kalispell, I reside just south of the intersection of Tronstad and US 93. I travel this intersection multiple times a day. This stretch of roadway is one of the most dangerous in the valley. How the traffic study presented by the applicant does not confirm this, baffles me. The 8.5 mile stretch between Montana 40 and Rose Crossing to the south has zero controlled intersections and has over one hundred ingress/egress locations between these two points. In comparison, U.S. 2 has two controlled intersections at Glacier Park International Airport and Birch Grove. Having two controlled intersections creates a break in traffic allowing east and west bound crossings to do it in a safer manner. As you know, U.S. 93 now has Glacier Bank Park, Majestic Arena, Silverbrook Estates and recently approved Owl Corporation Subdivision and Spartan Development. All this development and not a single controlled intersection for 8.5 miles is a recipe for disaster. The speed limit is 65mph with 75 the norm. Board members, this will never get any better until a signalized intersection or two are added to this stretch of 93. In addition to the traffic issue on US 93, Tronstad Road from 93 to Whitefish Stage is a dangerous roadway with no room for error on the eastbound or the westbound traffic lanes. Adding a subdivision with this density is irresponsible until the surrounding infrastructure can accommodate it. Although I am certainly pro-growth in our valley, it must be responsible growth catering to not only the developers but also the existing residents and future residents in the area. I am pleading to the commissioners to not approve any future developments in this area until Highway 93 and Tronstad Road can support it. Respectfully, Larry Sartain 310 Fox Hollow Ct. Kalispell, MT 59901 406-871-5000 1 PJ Sorensen From:Ming Lovejoy <minglovejoy1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 2, 2024 8:47 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL RE: Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing RE: Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Dear Members of the Kalispell City Planning Board, We are homeowners and taxpayers in the city of Kalispell as well as homeowners in the county and writing to strongly urge you to vote NO on the rezoning and preliminary plat approval of the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing development. The applicant’s proposal introduces an overwhelming number of unaddressed safety issues, all of which must be fully understood, strategically anticipated, and fully resolved before any approval can be granted. The traffic study submitted by the applicant is fatally flawed. It does not mention, let alone address, critical traffic hazards, including the blind hills (vertical obstacles) that violate sight distance standards in the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction. The applicant has made no effort to account for the dangerous impact of these obstacles on the proposed increase of 3,300 vehicle trips per day that would result from this development at full buildout. Dangerous and Incomplete Improvements —Let’s be real here The developer’s plan only mentions upgrading Tronstad Road to city standards with sidewalks in front of the proposed subdivision and the neighboring Koenig subdivision, connecting with Quail Meadows. However, this leaves critical sections of Tronstad Road to the east and west of the subdivision unimproved—sections that are essential ingress and egress routes for the development. Tronstad Road is currently a narrow county road with inadequate width, poor sightlines, and hazardous intersections at both Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. One of the most glaring issues is that this application would create an island of density far beyond what Tronstad Road can handle. With no additional outlets for ingress or egress, all traffic—including resident, service, construction, and emergency vehicles—would be forced onto Tronstad Road, navigating substandard intersections at Whitefish Stage to the east and Highway 93 to the west, both of which are set to remain largely unimproved. Some areas of the road are too narrow and do not meet the city’s Level of Service requirements for safety. The failure to address critical infrastructure issues, road hazards, and the demands on emergency services— which are located well outside the city limits—especially during winter when this road is notorious for dangerous snow drifts, makes it clear that approving this development would pose unacceptable risks. The “build-it-and-fix-it-later” mentality being proposed here is completely unacceptable. Tronstad Road presents unique, serious challenges that cannot be easily dismissed. If these problems were simple to solve—and with a highly experienced developer with hundreds of subdivisions nationwide set to make tens of millions of dollars in profit on this project alone—don’t you think solutions would have been clearly presented by now? After the better part of two years in the planning phase and the developer’s second application, there's no absolutely NO excuse for the lack of a solid, safe proposal. Let's be real here. 2 A Bigger Problem Brewing Honorable Planning Board members, please do not ignore the larger issue that this application has highlighted. With more than 600 signatures on a petition and over 150 letters in opposition, the visibility and public awareness surrounding this issue are undeniable. This isn’t just about one flawed application—this is about the community beginning to question your responsibility in evaluating applications that directly impact the safety and future of Kalispell. By allowing this deeply flawed proposal to progress, you’re sowing doubt in your own constituents' minds that you're truly acting in their best interest. This isn't just about urban planning anymore—it's becoming a public relations nightmare that risks eroding trust between you and the very people you’re supposed to represent. After nearly two years in the planning phase and two rounds of submissions from the developer, there is absolutely NO excuse for the lack of a solid, safe proposal. The community is watching, and it’s your duty to act responsibly. MDOT’s Priorities and Traffic Signals The developer has not provided any tangible assurances from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) about when or if a traffic signal will be installed at the dangerous Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. MDOT has made it clear that their current priorities are focused on installing signals at the new Costco north of Reserve and at Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage Road—leaving the Tronstad/Highway 93 intersection unaddressed for potentially years to come. Additionally, Whitefish Stage Road, a Montana Highway under MDOT jurisdiction, may not see any improvements for the next 5 to 10 years. This delay exacerbates the dangers at the Tronstad/Whitefish Stage intersection, which is already a known hazard. So, with no clear timeline and no assurance of priority from MDOT, are we really willing to gamble with lives on a road already known for its dangers—just to push through this 355-lot development? Note: this application and the developer are NOT even producing housing!! How ironic is it that the rallying cry used to garner support and to push this project forward—touting "haste" for the sake of so-called "affordable" housing—has been echoed falsely, even by our own news media? The truth is clear: over 600 signatures on a petition and hundreds of comments from concerned citizens demonstrate that this narrative is, at best, misleading and, at worst, patently false. We believe the future strategic planning of our beloved city deserves the highest standard of critical evaluation and careful follow through. The “Vertical Obstacles” and Blind Hills Tronstad Road has three major vertical obstacles (blind hills) that create significant safety hazards. In tests conducted on September 18, 2024, on a sunny day with dry roads, the blind hill 0.7 miles east of Highway 93 was found to create stopping challenges for vehicles at speeds above 45 mph. At 49 mph, a vehicle could not stop before hitting an obstacle, and at 60 mph, vehicles overshot the obstacle by up to 72 feet. Here’s an image: imagine—- imagine dragging a pedestrian, or God-forbid, a baby stroller with a child in it for 72 feet after impact because that’s how long it could take to stop! Please keep in mind that this study was inspired by the fact that we saw a young woman pushing a baby stroller down this hill on the north side of Tronstad Rd.—-walking 'with traffic’ exactly in this spot on the blind hill—meaning an oncoming car traveling over 45 mph would NOT be able to stop in time to not hit her and her child had the horrible scenario we’re presenting actually unfolded. 3 Imagine the scenarios with increased traffic due to a poorly future-planned subdivision of 355 lots/homes! The photo below is Ming, walking east on Tronstad Rd., against traffic, in the same spot where we saw the young woman with baby in the stroller just a few weeks ago. 4 Are you really prepared to approve a plan that relies on future fixes and temporary chaos, or worse— deaths, to occur, hoping that it will somehow work out? Reminder—this developer is, in the words of one neighbor, committing a “hit-and-run.” This applicant is interested in creating 355 lots to sell, and has expressed NO intention of sticking around to build community. Lack of Off-Site Traffic Impact Mitigation The applicant has also failed to provide adequate mitigation measures for the off-site traffic impacts that this development will cause. With Tronstad Road only 22 feet wide in many places—less than half the width required for a major collector road—and with steep ditches on either side, the road cannot safely accommodate the significant increase in traffic. Despite this, the applicant has made no proposals for widening the road or addressing the sight distance and safety issues posed by the blind hills. How can we justify adding thousands of vehicle trips per day on a road that is already a potential death trap—without a real and tangible plan to make it safer? The Elephant in the Room: A Dangerous Road Left Unaddressed It is not an exaggeration to say that Tronstad Road, if the current subdivision is approved, is a disaster waiting to happen. Picture this: a narrow, crumbling road with blind hills and no room for error, now flooded with thousands of additional cars. With steep vertical obstacles, narrow width, and inadequate infrastructure, it is not prepared to handle the increased traffic this development would bring. The applicant has ignored this reality, and the traffic study fails to account for the true scope of the safety risks. But you don’t have to ignore the realities. The choice is yours… in fact that is your job and the job of our city planners, to ensure that growth is strategic and safe. This board cannot, in good conscience, approve a development that so clearly disregards public safety. The elephant in the room—the unresolved hazards of Tronstad Road—must be addressed fully before any consideration of rezoning or plat approval. In conclusion, the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development proposal fails to address significant safety issues, ignores critical infrastructure needs, and provides no clear solutions to the dangerous conditions it will exacerbate. We urge you to vote NO on this application until you individually and collectively understand and can verify that these concerns are fully resolved and the necessary improvements are in place. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions or require further information, we would be happy to provide additional context. Sincerely, Dan & Ming Munzing 213 Tronstad Rd. and 139 East Swift Way Kalispell 1 PJ Sorensen From:Helen Hammer <hhammer@mac.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 2, 2024 9:02 PM To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL infrastructure needed before Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing is approved Dear members of the Kalispell City Planning Board, I am unable to aᲾend the October 8th public comment mee ng for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing subdivisions. I have lived on Whitefish Stage between Rose Crossing and Tronstad for over twenty years. Traffic is heavy, with many motorists disregarding speed limits. Inten onal use of Whitefish Stage for high speed driving well in excess of the speed limit is common, including during day me hours. Whitefish Stage and Tronstad both have narrow lanes, steep ditches and minimal to no shoulder. The addi on of Rose Crossing between Whitefish Stage and Hwy 93 has been an improvement, however without a light at this intersec on traffic backs up and vehicle crashes have been frequent. Traffic control improvements are needed prior to the addi on of over 300 more residences on Tronstad Road. A traffic signal is needed at Hwy 93 and Tronstad. The intersec ons of Whitefish Stage with both Tronstad and Rose Crossing will need either traffic lights or at least four way stops. Without these improvements I believe traffic fatali es and frequent crashes will be inevitable. Please vote to postpone approval of the new subdivisions un l a feasible plan is in place for road improvements and traffic control. Best Regards, Helen Hammer 2420 Whitefish Stage Kalispell, MT 59901 hhammer@mac.com From:Michele DeMaris To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Date:Thursday, October 3, 2024 3:22:30 PM Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, As a concerned homeowner and taxpayer in the City of Kalispell and Flathead County, I oppose the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing, especially the updated R-2 zoning with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This development was previously proposed with 380 single-family lots and has now only been reduced by a mere 25 homes to a total of 355 homes. The prior proposal was denied by the Kalispell City Council due to serious safety concerns. The Planning Board's obligation to Kalispell citizens is to ensure our safety. Therefore, the need for traffic signalization must be addressed prior to any development on Tronstad. In addition, the proposed development only includes street improvements for a portion of Tronstad Road. The road west of Quail Meadows and the street east of this development are not being improved. This results in significant stretches of road that are required for ingress/egress, but which have deep ditches on both sides, no shoulder, and multiple blind hills. This creates a serious safety concern, particularly in winter. The number of homebuyers who would eventually be travelling on this narrow 2-lane country road, as well as exiting onto Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage, could easily add another 700 drivers to already unsafe country roads. The resulting back-ups could definitely impact Reserve Drive as well, a corridor that is already experiencing daily traffic jams and frequent car accidents. Please seriously consider these factors. This development does not work in the proposed location at this time. Sincerely, Michele DeMaris 139 Buffalo Stage, Kalispell, MT 59901 From:elkhorn To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL opposition to Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 8:12:12 AM Sent from Mail for Windows Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, I strongly oppose the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing. The developer did very little to improve on the safety, infrastructure, school overcrowding and traffic issues in his new proposal to R2 with PUD. (Bad idea). I respectfully request that you deny the rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing until the developer comes up with clear solutions to the above issues. Sincerely, Jamie and Lynne Gronley 210 Highland Dr. Kalispell From:Bruno Kueng To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 7:41:59 AM Good morning all My name is Bruno Kueng I live at 40 Tronstad Lane Kalispell. I would like to voice myopposition to the Tronstad Meadows/ Whitetail crossing development. Reasons I oppose this development are as follows first being safety. Tronstad road being my biggest concern the road is very narrow has three blind spots has large ditches and drop offs on both sides in the winter the road has occasions of large snowdrifts also at times has reduced visibility even when the road has been plowed there are times when it is down to nearly a single lane because you cannot tell where the edge of the road is .Even in good weather the road is not bike nor pedestrian friendly. Kids going to school and school bus safety should also be considered. The intersections athighway 93 and Whitefish Stage are also a problem. Second reason I oppose this development is the density of The proposal just does not fit inwith the surrounding area just too many houses. Third reason I opposed this development would be to my understanding when the propertywas sold it was zoned as 2.5 size lots the developer or the current owners when purchasing this property knew that and they should have respected that zoning of lot sizes. I don't think it'sright that an out of state developer comes in and tries to change a plot of property for their own profit if they wish to develop they should have respected the 2.5 lot sizes. Thank you all for considering my concerns .Regards Bruno Kueng From:Barry Bunn To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Proposed Tronstad Subdivision Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 3:31:29 PM Please consider our objections to the extremely high density development that is being proposed for Tronstad Rd. The extremely high density is only requested by the developer as a way to create 290,000,000 dollars worth of revenue for them. It is not about creating a safe peaceful living environment. The tremendous increase in traffic on an inferior county road is dangerous and does not consider the current residents of the area. I would invite you to personally drive on Tronstad during peak hours and especially travel east during any amount of snow. You will see the danger of the blind hills and massive snow drifts that occur. It can prevent eastbound travel for extended periods in the winter. Also envision an additional 3000 cars and construction equipment on Tronstad daily. It is unfathomable!! We are not against a reasonable amount of homes going in. Current zoning would not adversely affect the area. Putting 355 homes on 110 acres will stress the road system, utilities, schools and public safety. As citizens we put ourselves in your capable hands to make good decisions relating to the safety and stability of our community. Just because a developer asks for rezoning to enrich themselves doesn’t mean you’re obligated to vote for it. Especially when it would stress the current infrastructure to the limits of safety and support. We are originally from Georgia and saw these high density subdivisions allowed and the ensuing traffic and strain on community services made it a miserable place to live. Trust me you don’t want to look back and regret making decisions today that would adversely affect where you live and raise your family. Thank you for taking the time to consider our request to deny the overwhelming density of this proposed project. We trust you to make a wise decision for our future. Best regards, Barry and Anita Bunn Kalispell Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1417, Missoula, MT 59806 (406) 314-3583 michelle@michelleweinberglaw.com October 4, 2024 Sent via E-Mail Kalispell City Planning Commission 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 planning@kalispell.com Re: # KA-24-08; KPUD-24-03; & KPP-24-04: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Applications To: Kalispell City Planning Commission This firm represents Dan and Ming Munzing in the above referenced matter and submits this letter in opposition to the: (1) annexation and initial zoning of R-2 (Residential) with a Planned Unit Development overlay and (2) preliminary plat approval for 355 lots on approximately 110.5 acres, including lots, roads, and common areas. The subject property is located on Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road. Please note that this letter only contains my clients’ initial concerns in opposition to the application and they will supplement the record during the review process with additional public comments. First, as with developer’s first zoning and subdivision applications that were either rejected or not considered by the Kalispell City council on June 17, 2024, there are numerous public health and safety concerns associated with the proposed development. Pursuant to the zoning review criteria of § 76-3-304, MCA: (1) Zoning regulations must be: (a) made in accordance with a growth policy; and (b) designed to: (i) secure safety from fire and other dangers; (ii) promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and Page 2 (iii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Additionally, under § 76-3-608, MCA, a subdivision proposal 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.” Here, the developer’s current request for a zone change and preliminary plat are deficient under Montana law. In this regard, it should be noted that the developer has only reduced the number of proposed lots by 25 total lots which, of course, is insufficient to address the chief barrier precluding approval of the applications – that is, the traffic safety concerns associated with the proposed high-density development. According to Rick Nys, P.E., a Principal Traffic Engineer retained by my clients, the traffic volumes associated with the development would far exceed the maximum vehicle trips per day threshold on Tronstad Road. Additionally, Mr. Nys has conducted a review of the application materials and has found the numerous omissions and errors precluding approval of the applications including but not limited to the following: • The development will cause an unmitigated failure at the intersection Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road. • The traffic study fails to include any crash data precluding a complete review of the TIS by Mr. Nys or the City of Kalispell. • The traffic counts at Highway 93/Tronstad are more than two years old and it unclear whether they have been adjusted to present year volumes. The traffic model says the existing year volumes are 2023, but the counts are from 2022. • Traffic counts are typically based on two hour traffic counts and then the highest hour within the two hours is selected as the analysis period. The traffic study relied on AM traffic counts of just a one hour period and 1 hour and 15 minutes in the weekday PM. It appears that the traffic counts may not have been collected during the peak hour as some of the traffic volumes are at or near the peak during the beginning or end of the short count periods. • The information about the timing of the four phases of development is inconsistent. • The application does not comply with the requirement that developments must maintain or improve the existing level of services (LOS). • The traffic study doesn't appropriately adjust per peak hour factors or heavy vehicle percentages. Additionally, while the staff report states that the development would add about 178 students to an already overburdened school system, the report fails to assert whether Edgerton Elementary and Glacier High School have the capacity to handle the increased student population. Indeed, according to Kalispell Public School officials, these schools would likely be unable to handle such an increase: Page 3 “Earlier this year, officials from the Kalispell Public Schools announced that they would initiate a long-range facility plan for the district, as the majority of its schools have reached, or will soon reach, capacity. As of August 2022, Rankin, Edgerton and Hedges Elementary Schools had all reached above 95% building capacity, Peterson Elementary had reached 77%, Elrod Elementary hit 71% and Russell Elementary climbed to 69%. The district also reported that Kalispell Middle School and Flathead and Glacier High Schools are operating at or above capacity.” Flathead Beacon, Growing Pains and Construction Projects Lay Ahead for Flathead Valley Schools (January 5, 2023). While state statute states that a local government cannot deny a subdivision based solely on the subdivision’s impacts to educational services, a zone change request can be denied on this basis and a subdivision can be denied on this basis if additional grounds exist for denial (here, for example, public safety concerns). Indeed, given the obvious detrimental impact this high density development will have on school capacity, the applications must denied because the development cannot provide for the adequate provision of schools required under Montana law. Finally, the staff report also states in a conclusory fashion that the police department and fire department can adequately provide service to the subdivision. However, without a statement from the Kalispell Police Department and the respective fire department(s) that will serve the development indicating whether this to be the case, the applications cannot be approved based on the conclusory and unverified statements of the planning department. Because there are numerous concerns associated with the proposed development that fail to meet the zoning and subdivision review criteria such that an approval would be unlawful, the applications must be denied. For these reasons, my clients respectfully request the Commission recommend denial of the above reference applications. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, /s/ Michelle T. Weinberg MICHELLE T. WEINBERG, PLLC Attorney for Dan and Ming Munzing October 4, 2024 Kalispell City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Transportation Impacts Greenlight Engineering has been asked by Daniel and Mingulay Munzing to evaluate the transportation related impacts of the proposed Tronstad Meadow and Whitetail Crossing developments just outside Kalispell, Montana. I previously reviewed similar applications at this location and have included my previous reports as Appendix A to this report. Many of the previous concerns remain with this application. Those reports focused on the February 2024 “Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study” (hereafter referred to as the “TIS”), the May 2024 “Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update” (“TIS Update”). This report focuses on the July 2024 version of the “Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Traffic Impact Study Update” (“TIS Update 2”) prepared by Abelin Traffic Services. The applicant has had several opportunities to correct the errors previously made in the TIS, TIS Update and previous applications, yet the same errors persist along with new errors. Once again, it is very clear that 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.” The application continues to fail to provide evidence of adequacy of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive and Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersections prior to the installation of a traffic signal at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive which will likely not be installed for many years. Based on this, the application cannot be approved. Executive Summary The application fails 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 the following: ◦The application fails to analyze the adequacy of traffic operations at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive with the phase one improvements in place (no traffic signal). While a traffic signal may eventually be installed at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive, there is no evidence that the intersection will operate adequately until the traffic signal is installed. 13554 Rogers Road ● Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com ● 503.317.4559 ◦The timing of the proposed phases and the traffic analyses provided are inconsistent with each other. The application proposes a longer timeline while the traffic analysis assumes a shorter timeline. Thus, the traffic analysis fails to follow city requirements in accounting for the impacts of the development. ◦The application fails to provide the required traffic analysis at the end of each phase. ◦The application establishes that the development will cause an unmitigated failure at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road in violation of city requirements. There is an existing vertical curve (hill) on Tronstad Road between the development and Whitefish Stage Road that should be analyzed for adequacy as the development has a major impact on Tronstad Road. The Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection was not analyzed correctly as it failed to account for traffic from Silverbrook Drive. There are unexplained errors and omissions in the seasonal variation, crash data, traffic signal warrant analysis, and traffic counts that could impact the outcome of the application. The Application Fails to Analyze Traffic at Each Phase of Development The City of Kalispell “Standards for Design and Construction”1 requires 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.” (emphasis added) 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 “Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative” states that “Phase 1 is proposed to begin construction in 2025 and completion in the summer of 2026...Phase 2 of the project would go to construction in 2026 and be finished in 2027. The subsequent phases will be completed approximately every two years.” Per the applicant, phase three will be completed in approximately 2029 and phase four in approximately 2031. Per the “City of Kalispell Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Determination Form,” a development of this size is required to provide a traffic analysis that includes “Opening year plus 5 and 10 years into the future (phasing of the development must also be considered.)” Assuming the first phase of development is completed in 2026, then a year 2026, 2031 (five years from phase one opening) and 2036 traffic analysis (10 years from phase one opening) are 1https://www.kalispell.com/DocumentCenter/View/466/Standards-for-Design-and-Construction-PDF 2 required to analyze phase one. If the fourth phase of development is completed in 2031, then a year 2031, 2036 and 2041 analysis are required analyze phase four. All of this analysis should be based on the improvements that will exist and/or are proposed to be in place at the time to comply with the requirement that “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways” and “...make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development” (emphasis added). By not analyzing any of the individual phases, the TIS Update 2 effectively assumes that a traffic signal is in place throughout the development, when that is not the case. Like the previous traffic analyses, the proposed phase timelines have not been addressed in TIS Update 2 at all. As such, the TIS Update 2 is still remarkably and obviously inconsistent with the application. Inexplicably, Table 7 and Table 8 of the TIS Update 2 are based upon an analysis that assumes the full development will be constructed by 2026. This is evidenced in Appendix C of the TIS Update 2 and as shown below in Figure 1. Figure 1 illustrates a portion of the traffic analysis with an analysis year of 2026. The traffic analysis is clear that 2026 is the year when all phases will be complete. Obviously, either the application narrative or the TIS Update 2 are incorrect. Figure 1: Excerpt of TIS Update 2 Table 7 of TIS Update 2 illustrates the operations at the end of phase four assuming the existing intersection configuration of Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive. Table 8 of the TIS Update 2 illustrates the operations at the end of phase four with the traffic signal in place at Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive. The TIS Update 2 fails to provide any traffic analysis of any other phase and fails to provide any analysis of the transportation system incrementally of phases one through three, in clear violation of city requirements. The TIS Update 2 fails to provide evidence that the intersection without a traffic signal will operate within city requirements. The Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing PUD Narrative prepared by the applicant states: “With Phase 1, the applicant will reconstruct the intersection of Tronstad/Silverbrook and Highway 93 to include left hand turn lanes on the east and west legs, Tronstad Rd and Silverbrook Dr., and installing all of the infrastructure for traffic signals at the intersection. The developer will provide the MDOT a financial guarantee for the trafficlights so that the MDOT can install the lights as soon as they deem appropriate. The proposed intersection improvements will restore acceptable level of service at this intersection and eliminate the need for the porkchops and restricted turning movements.” 3 It is important to note that the applicant states that the traffic signal “will restore acceptable level of service at this intersection” thereby providing evidence that the intersection will not operate adequately until that time. The TIS Update 2 fails to analyze traffic operations at the Highway 93/Tronstad intersection with the phase one geometric improvements (with no traffic signal in place). The May 15, 2024 MDT letter states: “Phase one will include the following geometric improvements at the intersection. First, the realignment of Tronstad Road and Silverbrook Drive to mitigate the existing offset between the approaches. Second, the addition of the northbound right turn lane onto Tronstad Road. Lastly, the reconstruction/realignment of the northbound and southbound left turn lanes to eliminate the existing negative offset. These three improvements are consistent with and further depicted on the two attached MDT approved illustrative drawings. In addition to these geometric improvements during the first phase, underground infrastructure will be placed to allow for future signalization of this intersection. The signals, poles, and cabinet will be installed when approved by MDT. MDT approval will be consistent with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. Phase two of the improvements will be the installation of the traffic signal and any needed ADA or pedestrian facilities at the intersection of Tronstad Road and Highway 93. MDT considers the proposed phased improvements as permittable actions in MDT right of way.” In all likelihood, the operations under that configuration will be worse than the existing configuration (which restricts eastbound/westbound left turns) and the application will fail to “...make infrastructure improvement recommendations so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” While the TIS Update 2 states that “It should be noted that the traffic signal would be a requirement to allow left turns onto Highway 93 from Tronstad Road as the approach would function at LOS F without the higher form of traffic control,” it appears that the applicant has proposed the opposite and plans to construct and ask for phase one improvements with no traffic signal even though there is no evidence that this configuration will meet city requirements. Ignoring the operations of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection without a traffic signal in place renders the TIS Update 2 wholly inadequate and the application not approvable. In their narrative, the applicant states “The Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Development is proposed in four phases starting at the south east and rotating counter clockwise. Each phase will be capable of standing on it’s own.” While the applicant acknowledges each phase is required to stand on it's own and not rely on improvements from other phases, there is not evidence to support the applicant's conclusion. 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 presumably requires the transportation network to operate adequately at the end of each phase and not rely on future phases to construct infrastructure. In the case of this application, the 4 applicant has failed to establish that at the completion of each phase, the development has maintained the existing level of service at intersections, a clear violation of city requirements. Instead, the TIS Update 2 only analyzes the development as completed in an attempt to rely on a traffic signal that won't likely be installed for many years. The applicant has failed to even provide evidence that illustrates with what phase the traffic signal will be warranted, again in violation of city requirements. The applicant has failed to provide evidence that illustrates that each phase can stand on it's own as the application fails 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.” Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road Intersection Does Not Meet City Requirements 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. The TIS Update 2 explains that some traffic will avoid the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection to travel south on Highway 93. Per the TIS Update 2, the traffic signal wouldn't be warranted until at least Phase 2, but no specific phase timeline is provided as is required. 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 prior to the traffic signal installation. Table 2 of the TIS Update 2 establishes that the existing level of service at the Whitefish Stage Road & Tronstad Road intersection is LOS B. Table 7 of the TIS Update 2 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. While the TIS Update 2 states that “All intersections will continue to function at an acceptable Level of Service through 2026,” this is demonstrably false as an acceptable LOS is maintaining the existing LOS. The applicant has provided evidence that the application is not in 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.” The TIS, TIS Update, and TIS Update 2 don't contemplate any potential mitigation at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersection and provide no evidence of feasible mitigation. Instead, the TIS, TIS Update and TIS Update 2 all clearly provide evidence that the level of service will not be maintained and that the city requirements won't be met. Based on this acknowledged and unmitigated intersection failure alone, the application must be denied. 5 Application Fails to Address Off-Site Traffic Impacts The City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations Section 28.2.06.E.5 states: “A subdivider may be required to pay or guarantee payment for part or all of the costs of extending capital facilities related to public health and safety, including but not limited to public roads, sewer lines, water supply lines and storm drains to a subdivision but the costs must reasonably reflect expected impacts attributable to the subdivision.” Section 28.3.03.A states: “Lands where there is evidence of the following possible hazard conditions occurring shall not be subdivided for building or residential purposes unless the hazards areeliminated or mitigated by approved design and construction plans... 10. Air or vehicular traffic hazards or congestion, 11. Any other features that may be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of existing or future residents.” The TIS Update 2 states that “Tronstad Road has a paved width of 20-22 feet and the posted speed limit is 35 MPH.” While the development proposes to widen Tronstad Road along their site frontage, most of Tronstad Road will not be improved. TIS Update 2 states that with the existing configuration at Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection, “The traffic volume increases will be approximately 900 VPD to the west on Tronstad Road, 2,400 VPD east on Tronstad Road...The total Traffic volumes on Tronstad Road will be approximately 3,800 VPD...” (emphasis added). With a traffic signal installed at Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive, the TIS Update 2 states that “Under this road configuration the traffic volume increases would be approximately 2,400 VPD to the west on Tronstad Road, 900 VPD east on Tronstad Road, 800 VPD increase on Whitefish Stage Road, and 1,600 VPD increase on Highway 93. The total Traffic volumes on Tronstad Road will be approximately 4,000 VPD and 5,800 VPD on Whitefish Stage Road.” TIS Update 2 describes the existing speeds along Tronstad Road as the “...average vehicle speed on this section of roadway was 41 MPH, while the 85th percentile speed was 49 MPH for all recorded vehicles.” The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85% of drivers travel at or below. In some communities, it is used in part for determining posted speeds or design speed of a road. There is a vertical curve (hill) on Tronstad Road between the development and Whitefish Stage Road that should be evaluated for sight distance to ensure that vehicles on Tronstad Road can stop or avoid conflicts on Tronstad Road in the vicinity of that hill. Section 9.12 of the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction requires that a traffic impact study "shall contain the minimum content" including: “Traffic and Improvements Analysis: Given the total projected traffic for each horizon 6 year, Chapter 5 presents an analysis of the future traffic conditions, identifies needs, and analyzes alternative improvements for the study area... d. Multimodal Considerations e. Speed Considerations/Sight Distance” The City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction sight distance standards include: "9.1.6 Sight Distance A. Shall be determined by design speed as required by the AASHTO Green Book. B. A minimum of 200-feet is required for all horizontal and vertical curves." The AASHTO Green Book is formally called AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets." Per “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”, stopping sight distance should be provided along the entire length of all roads and streets. Table 8 of the City of Kalispell's Standards for Design and Construction provides design speeds based on street classification, which calls for a design speed of 35 MPH. However, given the rural nature of the street and the speed data reported by the applicant that illustrates the 85th percentile speed is 49 MPH, a higher design speed may be warranted in this case. Table 8 also illustrates that the minimum paved width for a major collector street in the City of Kalispell is 48 feet, while Tronstad Road is 22 feet at its most wide according to the TIS Update 2. Given that the development has a significant impact on the transportation system beyond its street frontage due to the large number of vehicle trips, that the width of Tronstad Road is significantly less than standard width, that the City's traffic impact study requirements require an evaluation of multimodal considerations and sight distance issues, and with the presence of a vertical curve (hill) along Tronstad Road, the applicant should be required to evaluate their impacts on Tronstad Road on safety. Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive Not Analyzed Correctly The TIS, TIS Update, and TIS Update 2 all redistributed traffic volumes on the east approach of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection when converting the intersection from its current restricted left turn configuration to a traffic signal configuration with all left turns available. However, the TIS, TIS Update, and TIS Update 2 have all failed to account for adjustments to traffic volumes on the west approach to Highway 93 from Silverbrook Drive. Seasonal Traffic Variation Not Documented and Inconsistent The MDT Traffic Engineering Manual guides a traffic analyst to utilize seasonal traffic adjustments to analyze peak periods of the year as traffic volumes can fluctuate over the course of the year. The TIS states “The raw data collected for this project was adjusted for seasonal variation in accordance with the data collected from MDT’s 2022 annual count station located on US Highway 2 west of Kalispell (Station A-24). This count station data indicated that the data collected in January 2022 is approximately 88% of the AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) in this area. The raw traffic counts were factored up by 12% to account for the seasonal traffic variations in this area.” 7 The TIS, TIS Update and TIS Update 2 provide no evidence of the traffic volumes from the count station that were used in determining the seasonal traffic variations. There is no way for a reviewer to determine whether 12% is appropriate adjustment to apply. Most importantly, the traffic count data was taken from Highway 2. No evidence has been presented that a seasonal adjustment associated with Highway 2 is similar to a seasonal adjustment appropriate for Highway 93. 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 2 used in the traffic signal warrant analysis. No work is shown to understand how these traffic volumes were generated. There is no data provided that separates 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 reported peak hours used in the TIS, TIS Update and TIS Update 2. No crash data is provided. Conclusion As described above, the TIS, TIS Update, and TIS Update 2 contain numerous errors and omissions and fail 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.” The application fails to establish that the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection will operate adequately until such time that a traffic signal is installed. The application is inconsistent with itself as the phasing timeline fails to match the traffic analysis timeline. The application fails to provide the required traffic analysis at each phase. There is an unmitigated intersection failure at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road. There continues to be significant omissions with the Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive intersection analysis. There is an existing vertical curve (hill) on Tronstad Road between the development and Whitefish Stage Road that should be analyzed for adequacy. The development will have a significant impact on Tronstad Road. Based on these issues, the application should not be approved. 8 Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559. Sincerely, Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Traffic Engineer 9 Appendix A Previous Review Letters April 9, 2024 Kalispell City Planning Commission 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”) prepared by Abelin Traffic Services. There are several significant errors and omissions in the TIS that makes the traffic analysis unreliable and not compliant with City of Kalispell, Montana Department of Transportation (“MDT”) and/or industry standards. The application fails 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. Executive Summary The TIS establishes that the development will cause an unmitigated failure at the intersection of Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road. The TIS fails to provide evidence that the traffic signal at Highway 93/Tronstad Road is warranted with any phase, and certainly not at phase 1 when it is proposed by the applicant and city for installation. MDT will almost certainly not approve a traffic signal before it is warranted. The applicant will need to find approvable alternatives for the Highway 93/Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersections “...so existing level of services (LOS) is maintained or improved with each phase of the development.” The TIS may fail to include the impacts of several large developments approved yet not constructed in the vicinity of the development, thereby possibly under representing the future traffic volumes of the study intersections. There are unexplained errors and omissions in the seasonal variation, traffic counts, peak hour factors, crash data, and level of service analysis that could impact the outcome of the TIS. The improvement at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection includes a traffic signal, intersection realignment, northbound right turn lane, separated westbound left turn lane and shared through/right lane. If this application is approved, all of these elements should be required at this intersection as the TIS does not contemplate any other option. 13554 Rogers Road ● Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com ● 503.317.4559 The TIS Illustrates an Unmitigated Intersection Failure Tables 4 and 6 of the TIS clearly establish that the intersection of Whitefish State Road/Tronstad Road degrades in level of service with the development in place. The TIS notes that “...a LOS of C or better is considered acceptable for peak-hour conditions.” However, that statement is irrelevant as the City of Kalispell “Standards for Design and Construction”1 require that “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” In the April 9, 2024 city staff report, the failure is acknowledged as “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.” It is unclear how the city concludes that mitigation may be needed when it is clear that mitigation is required. The TIS fails to offer mitigation that would bring the intersection into compliance. Based on this acknowledged and unmitigated intersection failure alone, the application must be denied and no further review is necessary. Highway 93/Tronstad Road Traffic Signal Required by the City, but Not Warranted The applicant acknowledges that the development will be constructed in phases, although the applicant fails to provide the timing of their phases as required by the City of Kalispell. The City of Kalispell's “Standards for Design and Construction” requires “Descriptions should explain the time frame and stages/phases for the development.” The City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations require “A phasing plan must be submitted which includes...A time frame for the development of each phase.” The TIS fails to acknowledge the development's phasing at all and offers no traffic signal warrant analysis based on the completion of each phase of the project. The phases could take place over many years, but the applicant provides no estimate of this timeline. The “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.” This critical analysis was not performed. The national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) traffic signal warrants are primarily based upon traffic volumes. The applicant has assumed that the traffic signal would be constructed with phase one of the development. However, there is no evidence that a traffic signal would be warranted with the completion of phase one. The TIS provides some discussion, although it lacks substantial evidence, that a traffic signal may be warranted, but only with the full development, or phase four. This TIS provides no evidence that a traffic signal may be warranted prior to phase four. The TIS notes that “One or more of these warrants should be met before a traffic signal is 1https://www.kalispell.com/DocumentCenter/View/4967/Standards-for-Design-and-Construction--Draft- PDF 2 installed at an intersection.” The MDT Traffic Engineering Manual goes further and requires that “New traffic signals must meet the minimum warrants for signalization, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and must be justified.” The MDT is clear that the minimum warrants must be met, not just that they should be met. The traffic signal warrant analysis requires an analyst to collect and/or develop projected traffic volumes over the course of the day as a minimum of eight hours are utilized in reviewing one of the traffic signal warrants. The TIS fails to provide specifics about the traffic volumes used in the traffic signal warrant analysis so that no one reviewing the TIS knows can possibly know what volumes are being utilized. The TIS provides little evidence of the hourly traffic volumes on Highway 93 and fails to provide evidence of the raw traffic counts. The TIS provides little evidence of the traffic volumes used in the analysis for Tronstad Road. The TIS provides no evidence of the traffic volumes used in the analysis in estimating Quail Meadows and the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing traffic outside of the typical AM and PM peak hours. There is absolutely no way for a reviewer to check to see whether any of the traffic signal warrants are actually met or not or if the conclusions determined in the TIS with regard to the traffic signal warrants are reliable. In discussion of the MUTCD's Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume traffic signal warrant, the TIS states that “The projected eight-hour approaching left-turn traffic volume on the westbound approach for Tronstad Road is 109 VPH which may be sufficient to meet this warrant. Therefore, this warrant may be met.” In addition to failing to provide the traffic volumes for anyone to actually review the traffic signal warrant analysis, the TIS is inconclusive about whether the traffic signal is actually warranted. In the absence of a traffic signal warrant clearly being met, it is highly unlikely that MDT will approve a traffic signal. In reviewing the Four-Hour Vehicular Volume traffic signal warrant, the TIS states that “The future projected left-turn traffic volumes from Tronstad Road in the 4th highest hour is 96 VPH which would be sufficient to meet condition B of the fourth-hour vehicle volume. Therefore, this warrant may be met.” Again, the TIS is inconclusive about whether the traffic signal is warranted and there is nowhere within the TIS where the volumes used in the traffic signal warrant analysis can be checked for reliability. In reviewing the Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant, the TIS is again inconclusive: “The analysis of the current and projected traffic data indicates that Highway 93 has an afternoon peak-hour traffic volume of approximately 2,500 VPH and the projected peak hour westbound left-turn traffic from Tronstad Road is 99 VPH. These volumes may be sufficient to meet this warrant for peak-hour traffic volumes. However, it should be noted that this warrant is unusual and is not typically used unless other warrant criteria are met. In this case other warrants are near or met, so this warrant should be considered at this location. Therefore, this warrant may be met.” The TIS notes: “Other warrants such as 7 (crash experience) and 8 (roadway network) will likely become met with the projected traffic volume increases and changes to the road system which area currently expected in this area (sic)...Currently there is no way to accurately assess when traffic signal warrants could be met at this location since left turns are restricted. It 3 is also unknown how much additional traffic may be drawn to this intersection if a signal is installed in the future. It is clear that a significant amount of traffic from the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings Subdivisions and Quail Meadows project would turn left at this traffic signal if it were installed at this location (up to 180 vehicles per hour)...At this time, we recommend the developers of the Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossings (sic) Subdivisions begin a traffic signal design for this location and work with MDT to determine an appropriate timing for the installation of the signal.” Possibly meeting warrants 7 and 8 is highly speculative and certainly there is not evidence that these warrants are met or will be met. The TIS fails to provide the necessary evidence or conclude that any traffic signal warrants are met at all. As the traffic volumes used in the analysis haven't been provided for review, no one else can determine that either. However, without a traffic signal, it is known that the intersection will not meet Kalispell standards that require “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” The TIS has failed to analyze the likely scenario where the traffic signal is not warranted in phases one through three when MDT will almost certainly not allow a traffic signal to be constructed. It remains unclear whether the traffic signal is warranted even with the full build- out. As a result, the applicant should be required to provide an evaluation of the Highway 93/Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road intersections without the traffic signal in place to ensure the intersections are compliant with the clear requirements of the City of Kalispell to ensure “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways.” It is likely that both intersections would require some other mitigation prior to the time when a traffic signal is warranted. The city staff report states: “The TIS does not specify at what point in the phasing of the development the traffic signal would be warranted. Based on the annexation request as part of the annexation policy discussion in this report and the current status of the intersection with a limited ¾ movement, it would be 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 should be that it be installed as early in the phasing of the development as allowed by MDT” (emphasis added). Given that phase one of the development is only 25% (97 lots) of the total 380 planned lots and that the traffic signal warrants that may be met (not conclusively per the TIS) are based on traffic volume, it is clear that the traffic signal will not be warranted as part of phase one and may not even be met by phase four. Rather than support an unwarranted traffic signal, the city should require that the applicant revise their analysis and evaluate traffic signal warrants at the completion of each phase and require that the applicant provide a timing for their phasing (as is already required by city requirements). Installing an unwarranted traffic signal could be a legal liability and will almost certainly not be approved by MDT. While the applicant could easily evaluate this correctly and 4 completely, they have chosen to not evaluate the various phases to determine the appropriate timing of a traffic signal at this intersection. The city must ensure that all intersections operate per the city's requirements at each phase according to the city's standard which requires “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.” This requirement has been ignored. It is very unlikely that the MDT would approve a traffic signal before a traffic signal is warranted. Indeed, MDT's Traffic Engineering Manual which states that “New traffic signals must meet the minimum warrants for signalization, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and must be justified.” I am not aware that MDT has provided any comments on the traffic signal warrants and likelihood of signalization. It would be inappropriate to approve these applications without evidence that any traffic signal warrants are met. It certainly should not be assumed that the traffic signal would be installed as part of phase one. Given that MDT will not likely approve an unwarranted traffic signal with phase one, the applicant should be required to establish that the study intersections will operate adequately and safely until such time that a traffic signal is indeed warranted and approvable and the development meets the clear and objective requirements of the city. Highway 93/Tronstad Road Alternatives The TIS provides no evidence that any other traffic control alternatives have been evaluated for the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. In reviewing the need for a traffic signal, Chapter 12 of the MDT Traffic Engineering Manual recommends that a signal analysis conduct a “Consideration of Other Alternatives. The report should discuss whether or not there are any realistic alternatives for addressing the situation under study short of installing a traffic signal, including the advantages and disadvantages of each.” If other alternatives were analyzed, they certainly weren't discussed as part of the TIS. There is no evidence that the applicant has provided any analysis of other alternatives. As discussed above, it is not likely that a traffic signal will be approved as part of phase one of the development, so alternatives will need to be sought in order for this development to proceed and comply with City of Kalispell requirements that “The development shall maintain or improve the existing LOS of the affected roadways” and 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.” Seasonal Traffic Variation Not Documented and Inconsistent The MDT Traffic Engineering Manual guides a traffic analyst to utilize seasonal traffic adjustments to analyze peak periods of the year as traffic volumes can fluctuate over the course of the year. The TIS states “The raw data collected for this project was adjusted for seasonal variation in accordance with the data collected from MDT’s 2022 annual count station located on US Highway 2 west of Kalispell (Station A-24). This count station data indicated that the data collected in January 2022 is approximately 88% of the AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) in this area. The raw traffic counts were factored up by 12% to account for the seasonal traffic 5 variations in this area.” While the TIS text states that the traffic counts were “...were factored up by 12%...” the appendix of the TIS illustrates that the traffic counts may have been factored up by 6%. Figure 1. Excerpt of TIS illustrating seasonal adjustment of 1.06 rather than 1.12. Additionally, the TIS provides no evidence of the traffic volumes from the count station that were used in determining the seasonal traffic variations. There is no way to anyone to review whether a 6%, 12% or some other adjustment is the appropriate adjustment to apply. Additionally, the traffic count data is from Highway 2. No evidence has been presented that a seasonal adjustment on Highway 2 could be similar to a seasonal adjustment on Highway 93. Highway 93/Tronstad Road Lane Configuration The TIS relies upon a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 93/Tronstad Road. All of the traffic analysis in the TIS that includes a traffic signal also includes the installation of a northbound right turn lane and a separated westbound left turn lane and shared through/right lane. It is unclear whether these improvements are implied as part of the city's proposed conditions of approval, but it should be recognized that these improvements should be included as part of the conditions of approval. The TIS only illustrated operations with these additional travel lanes in place and doesn't analyze the intersection without these improvements in place. The application also fails to illustrate that these improvements are feasible to construct. The TIS Fails to Follow Industry Standard The TIS fails to include any crash data so the safety of the transportation system cannot be reviewed. The traffic counts at Highway 93/Tronstad are more than two years old and it is unclear whether they have been adjusted to present year volumes. The TIS appendices indicate that the existing year volumes are from 2023, but the counts are from 2022, so one year of growth may have 6 been ignored. Traffic counts are typically based on two hour traffic counts and then the highest hour within the two hours is selected as the analysis period. The traffic study relied on weekday AM traffic counts of just a one hour period and 1 hour and 15 minutes in the weekday PM. It appears that the traffic counts may not have been collected during the actual peak hour as some of the traffic counts are highest on the edge of the time collected. Figure 4 below illustrates that only one hour was counted and the highest volume 15 minute period started at 7:30 AM, indicating that the peak hour of the intersection was possibly missed and prior to 7:30 AM. It is typical for traffic counts to be collected from 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM to ensure that traffic counts are based upon the peak hour of the transportation system. Figure 2. Excerpt of TIS illustrating short traffic count period and peaking at beginning of count period, indicating that the traffic analysis may not be based upon the actual peak hour. The TIS didn't collect traffic counts of and didn't appropriately consider the presence of heavy vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. The TIS didn't appropriately account for peak hour factors in the analysis. All of these could affect the outcome of the level of service analysis. Figure 3. Excerpt of TIS illustrating a peak hour factor of 1.0, but that number should be less than 1.0 and be based on the applicant's traffic counts. The TIS May Fail to Account for Approved Developments not Constructed It is industry standard to include the traffic impact of other developments that have been approved, yet are not constructed (commonly referred to as “in-process” traffic) as part of new traffic impact studies to ensure that the traffic impact of those projects are considered. The TIS noted that “The Quail Meadows Subdivision...would produce 368 new daily vehicle trips in this area and would have two approaches onto Tronstad Road...The anticipated traffic from this project was included in this analysis.” It does not appear that other developments have been 7 considered as part of this TIS. The TIS relies on traffic counts from January 2022. It would be appropriate to consider the impacts of any approved development that were not constructed/operational as of January 2022. Otherwise, the impacts of those developments have not been accounted for. The TIS or the city staff report refer to various other recently approved developments including Stillwater Bend, Kalispell North Town Center, Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 2 and 3, Stillwater Village, Silverbrook Estates, Town Pump, and Farm District mixed use development. It is possible that any of these developments could add traffic to the area that is excluded from the TIS and may impact the operations of the study intersections. The applicant should be required to verify whether the impacts of approved, yet not constructed developments are considered as part of this TIS and update the TIS as appropriate. Inconsistent Trip Distribution The TIS states that “...70% of the traffic approaching the intersection from the planned developments will turn left onto Highway 93.” However, the TIS also illustrates just 45% of the traffic will turn left onto Highway 93. Figure 4. Excerpt of TIS illustrating inconsistencies with the trip distribution at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. The applicant should address this discrepancy. 8 Highway 93/Tronstad Road Analysis Missing Table 5 of the TIS presents a summary of anticipated traffic operations with the development in place with the existing lane configuration at Highway 93/Tronstad Road. However, the appendices lack the traffic analysis sheets that were provided in other scenarios that would provide evidence of this analysis. The applicant should be required to provide these analysis sheets for review. Otherwise, there is no way to review the applicant's work. Conclusion As described above, the TIS 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.” The applicant has failed to consider any other alternative than a traffic signal at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection. The TIS fails to establish that a traffic signal is warranted at all. Even if it is, the traffic signal warrant may only be warranted with phase four. The TIS is silent on how to address the city's clear and objective criteria to maintain adequate level of service with each phase of development. There is an unmitigated intersection failure at the Whitefish Stage Road/Tronstad Road and there is a likely intersection failure at the Highway 93/Tronstad Road intersection as the traffic signal has not been established as an approvable mitigation. 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 9 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 Application 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/Silverbrook 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).” 2 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 ¾ 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 Lane at Highway 93/Tronstad Road/Silverbrook Drive Argued Against 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/Silverbrook 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 5 From:bkkaupp@aol.com To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Opposition to Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Friday, October 4, 2024 4:39:50 PM Our names are David and Rebecca Kaupp. We are residents of Kalispell, living at 236 Tronstad Road. We live directly across from the proposed subdivision and want to state our opposition to the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing project. We understand the developers are again trying to push this project through by amending the amount of lots to 355; a difference of 25 lots from the original plan. Where is the logic in this? The same number of concerns presented regarding the original subdivision still persist. The severe traffic and safety concerns are paramount. The traffic of heavy construction vehicles over the period of this project will be ongoing, let alone the normal traffic on Tronstad Road. The amount of vehicles coming through fromHighway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road are already enough. Add to that the large trucks and construction vehicles necessary for this project and you have ongoing heavy traffic and congestion. It's already unsafe to even try to walk any part of this road. We cannot imagine the onslaught of traffic these residential lots will add to ourpresent community if this project is allowed. It would seem the safety of all residents on Tronstad Road and those that travel this road daily above all else would be a major concern in even contemplating this project. Many more concerns are weighing on our minds regarding this proposeddevelopment; lack of infrastructure upgrades, adequate emergency services, water, and school overcrowding. So many beautiful rural areas of Kalispell are being built over and we believe it is too much too fast. Once built we cannot get it back.We strongly encourage you as the planning commission to carefully weigh this decision. You cannot and should not appease those who come in to our community to only build at the expense of those who live here. We are the ones who must deal with the decisions and aftermath of the decisions you make. We know there aremany issues and factors involved here and pray you look at this proposed subdivision for what it is; creating a bigger, crowded town with all the problems that come with it. This development would take away more from the rural, beautiful environment that all Kalispell residents enjoy. Consider this matter carefully with the responsibility you have been given and to hear the community you serve. David and Rebecca Kaupp From:Pamela Davis To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Development Date:Saturday, October 5, 2024 7:01:21 AM Hello! Thank for taking community input regarding development on Tronstad Road. What prompted me to write to you is an observation I don’t think anyone else has made yet. The infrastructure improvements required to support this development prior to and during the building are well known. However, I want to draw attention to after it would be in place. If this development goes through as planned, I’m sure the plans to push everyone to use the new public water and sewer system won’t be far behind so that the costs of building the infrastructure can be recovered, as well as the costs of sidewalks, curb and gutter, fire hydrants and street lighting. I have been through forced use of new public utilities before. I can tell you now that if you burden many of these families with that expense you will break them. You will be responsible for adding more families to the list who cannot afford to live here. My daughter and son-in-law and I combined our assets to buy our new home. We all live together and work hard to support our home. It is nearly impossible to have a home on your own under this economy. If the current government continues another 4 years, I wonder how many of us will be able to stay in our homes? We all know that, despite their claims of affordable housing, there is nothing to stop every one of these homes from being bought for investment purposes. Affordable housing should be built where the investors are less likely to buy up the properties, not in the middle of the valley on some of the most expensive land in the state. As for the safety concerns, they have been well documented but cannot be restated enough. Driving Tronstad is becoming dangerous already due to drivers’ speed and not staying on their side of the road. We live on the rise in the middle of Tronstad Road and can tell you we don’t let the kids play in the front yard because of the number of near misses when drivers cannot see over the rise and are in the middle of the road. The eastbound driver will slam on the brakes and crank the wheel to the right. Our front yard is a natural landing spot under those circumstances, and it is only a matter of time before it happens. Please retain our current zoning. Let them build within our established zoning parameters like the rest of us. Please don’t let them do this! Thank you for your consideration, Pamela Davis 7 Tronstad Lane (406) 407-6042 From:MELISSA LOVEJOY To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Re: Vote NO on Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Saturday, October 5, 2024 9:30:54 AM Dear Planning Board Members, We write to you today as young parents concerned about the future of Kalispell. We grew up in the valley, moved away and hope to return to purchase a home in Kalispell in the next few-several years. Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing may promise new housing, but it also threatens the long-term safety and character of the community in which we grew up. Growth is important, but it needs to be well thought-out and done responsibly. This development brings more than just homes—it brings traffic congestion, safety risks, and an enormous strain on existing infrastructure. The blind hills and narrow lanes of Tronstad Road are already hazardous, especially during winter. Adding 3,300 daily vehicle trips to an inadequate road is a recipe for disaster. For crying out loud, this developer has spent almost 2 years working with the city directly to put this plan together and has already been turned down because of safety, traffic, and lack of infrastructure. In short, he just hasn’t adequately addressed the concerns that prompted the City Council to turn down the last proposal June 17th. He came back with practically the same proposal, now R-2 with a PUD and 25 fewer homes. What a joke and, honestly, an insult. As parents of young kids, we’re happy to give you some great advice about saying NO when your kid has tried the same trick twice, hoping you won’t notice! Just like we tell our kids, “No means no”—and this proposal, dressed up with minor tweaks, still falls short of what our community needs. If it wasn’t good enough then, it certainly isn’t good enough now. Please don’t risk the safety of our children and neighbors for an out-of-town billionaire developer who is motivated by his own short-term gains, and who is looking to cash out by selling lots and not even sticking around long enough to create community. Kalispell deserves growth that enriches our community, not developments that undermine it. We urge you to vote NO until the developer can present a plan that fully addresses these serious concerns. Sincerely, Ryder and Melissa Day Kalispell > Williston, ND > Kalispell again soon From:Melanie Lovejoy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Re: Opposition to Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Sunday, October 6, 2024 8:53:22 AM Melanie Pellew 1212 Longfellow Trail Kalispell, MT 59901 10/6/2024 Kalispell City Planning Board 201 1st Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Opposition to Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Dear Planning Board Members, As young professionals and business owners with a growing family, we’re deeply concerned about the impact that approving Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing will have on the safety and well-being of families like ours. After growing up here and moving away, we returned and purchased a home for the quality of life this valley provides. But, please note that this development threatens to compromise that by adding thousands of cars to an already overburdened road without the infrastructure to support it. Our concern is that this might be a pattern of shoddy, poorly thought-out planning that will become the norm in Kalispell. Please show us by your vote to NOT approve this application that our concerns are unfounded. I drive Tronstad Road frequently, and I can’t imagine navigating those blind hills or icy, narrow lanes with the kind of traffic this development would generate. Winters here are already hazardous—adding that many more vehicles will make it unbearable, not to mention dangerous for families trying to get to school, work, or in the event of an emergency. This isn’t about being against growth—it’s about being for safe, responsible growth. We urge you to deny this proposal until these real safety issues are addressed. Our community deserves better. Sincerely, Melanie and Hamish Pellew 1212 Longfellow Trail - Kalispell -- Melanie Pellew (Lovejoy)4062614307 From:karen relaxkauai.com To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows and Whitefish Crossing proposed developments Date:Sunday, October 6, 2024 1:43:09 PM Regarding Tronstad Meadows and Whitefish Crossing proposed developments, Current ongoing developments surrounding the US 93 and Tronstad Road areas include Silverbrook Estates, Quail Meadows and Eagle Valley Ranch. All of these are actively building a wide range of homes which are already affecting traffic and burdening infrastructure. Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road cannot support the density of the proposed developments. Additionally, the high density of these potential developments do not reflect current rural property and agricultural use. With actual affordable housing not guaranteed, there are no benefits to the community. Proposed density only benefits the developer. Karen Cole 354 Blue Spruce Ln. Kalispell From:Kristine Hursh To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadow & Whitetail Crossing - Against Plat Proposal Date:Sunday, October 6, 2024 3:58:51 PM Kalispell City Planning Commision, We appreciated all the questions and concerns that the planners had at the last meeting about this proposed project. We are requesting that you reject this new proposal. The developer has come back with a proposal that is still a very high density island in the middle of a very rural area, with 355 houses on just 110.5 acres. Taking 25 lots out of the previous proposal doesn't fix the neighborhood concerns. They say that they are allowed to have 5,000 sq ft lots, so they are proposing less density with R2 - this is still not the right spot for this. This is not downtown Kalispell, even with this parcel being annexed into the city. The developers reference Silverbrook, that development has access to Highway 93 and Church Drive. That is so different from this proposal, only having access to Tronstad Road. Tronstad and Whitefish Stage Roads are narrow county roads with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides, they are not ready for the additional traffic, including construction traffic to develop this project. Tronstad Road has three blind hills that can pose a hazard for all that additional traffic. Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing is planned to take place over four phases that will take several years to complete. Can the density change in the future to include apartment complexes or other multifamily dwellings? Are there any assurances that this development will only ever be single family homes into the future? Could the density increase even more on Tronstad without the infrastructure being adequate for such population growth? There is already so much building going on in the valley - just adding more won't make this development affordable. Reserve, Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage should be improved before this development proceeds. The developer's proposal to "improve Tronstad Road" ONLY applies to this development's frontage on Tronstad - what about the whole length of Tronstad from Highway 93 to Whitefish Stage? It is hard to turn onto Whitefish Stage from Tronstad with traffic now. You need to stop short of the corner for large vehicles to make the turn. A traffic signal is discussed in the proposal, it is still up to MDOT to actually put it in. It could be decades before we have any relief from the inadequate infrastructure that exists now. The out-of-state developers can tear up Tronstad Road and put their lots in for 710+ additional people and just walk away. They are not building a community of homes, just selling lots. They don't care about what they will leave behind, just that they are making lots of money. We still need to live here. The existing well on this property being shared with the city, as proposed, is problematic, there are others that have water rights. Also - the community on Tronstad is serviced by individual wells. With the existing well on the property servicing 355 new houses and the city of Kalispell - will our wells go dry? Will there be any recourse for us? Has that been evaluated? We have lived on Tronstad Road for nearly 25 years and recognize that the valley is growing and there will be development on Tronstad Road at some point. Please consider waiting until the infrastructure is adequate and consider much less density for this location. Add snow removal and drifts in the winter and it will be a big mess. Tronstad has weight limits for parts of the year. Emergency services will be an issue also. The only access to this development is Tronstad Road and safety is a big concern. Many neighbors have signed petitions, contributed to a legal fund and written emails to the planning board and city council with legitimate concerns for the ongoing safety in our community. We have also attended all the previous planning and council meetings and given public comment. Please reject this new plat proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Kristine & Kevin Hursh 210 Tronstad Road, Kalispell 406-253-5199 From:Dan Munzing To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows whitetail Crossing Opposition Date:Sunday, October 6, 2024 4:16:23 PM Attachments:IMG_6357.pngIMG_6356.pngIMG_6355.pngIMG_6399.pngIMG_6391.jpegIMG_6394.jpegIMG_6402.jpegIMG_6398.pngIMG_6393.jpegIMG_6390.jpegIMG_1543.jpeg [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] To The Kalispell Planning Committee, We appreciate your time and commitment in evalating the future growth plans for development in Kalispell. I would like to point out that the Abelin Traffic Services TIS is incomplete and fails to address vertical sight distances across Tronstad Road as mandated by city requirements. In addition, it also fails to address future road adequacy as mandated by the city of Kalispell. Kalispell mandates vertical and horizontal sight distances on roads according to AASHTO Green book and vertical distances are under 200 feet on the blind hill. I will also include a table demonstrating stopping distances. In addition, Tronstad Road fails to meet the asphalt width requirements for both city and county requirements. Tronstad Road is also subject to weather impact. I included the 8 foot drifts taken from Tronstad Road. Sincerely Daniel Munzing From:Mae Osborne To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL TM/WC proposal Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 9:49:01 AM The issues against this development continue. Our location is unique and different from other locations in our community.We cannot ignore the major issues and lack of safety and hazardous intersections of Tronstad Rd. and Hwy 93, Tronstad Rd. and Whitefish Stage.The density is inconsistent with neighboring properties and will in itself create additional safety problems.I plead with you for a reasonable, rational and righteous decision based on factual evidence and lawful regulations.Sincerely, Mae Osborne67 Tronstad Dr. From:Peg Crowl To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad "meadows" Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 10:09:37 AM Extremely opposed to proposed project. Not a single positive about it. Greed is ruining our beautiful Montana. We cannot accommodate the horrendous damage from the outrageousbuilding and influx now. Our city (ies) are now the cesspools outsiders are leaving behind, just bringing it here.Traffic is unbearable and dangerous. Rose Crossing & Whitefish Stage is "playing chicken" it is so violently dangerous. Outsiders pull out in front of oncoming traffic causing life threatening scenarios. We cannot ruin our way of life for greed. Common sense and values are missing. A neighbor got a highlyopposed zoning change because he had a BBQ for you people. He bought your vote for a lousy cheeseburger. How dare you not carry out the wishes of the people, your constituents!How dare you!!! You people are single handedly responsible for the land rape of Kalispell Montana allowing it to become the hideous places people are moving away from. Selling outMontana! Shame, shame, shame on you! STOP THE LAND RAPE NOW!We cannot accommodate any more period!!! From:Susan Foster To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL TRONSTAD MEADOWS & WHITEHALL CROSSING - OPPOSITION Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 10:09:58 AM Kalispell City Planning Board: This email is in OPPOSITION to the zoning change requests for TRONSTAD MEADOWS and WHITEHALL CROSSING proposed subdivisions located off Tronstad Road. Myopposition is for the following reasons: 1. These developments would be a continuation of the leapfrog development that started with SILVERBROOK. It's hard to believe the City of Kalispell approved such disjointeddevelopment that was and is so very disconnected from the city or any real community. A mistake from the beginning is a mistake indeed and should not be exacerbated. 2. These two subdivisions are served only by Tronstad Road. I use Tronstad Road frequently,and it is not in any condition to serve such large developments. There is no reasonable, safe way to access US HWY 93 going south other than to travel to Rose Crossing or Reserve.Allowing such dense development in this area will only accelerate the need for more traffic lights for safety. Again - disjointed development is creating disjointed and unsafe trafficissues. 3. I do not know if the city is concerned about the usurpation of farmland for housing developments. It does not appear so. But it does make one wonder when enough loss will beenough when it comes to destroying our agricultural lands. I am concerned that the cry for "affordable housing" at any/all cost will be something we come to regret in years to come. Itseems to be an emotional leverage that developers are using with our communities. Yes, there is a need, but development should be more thoughtful and less knee-jerk than what I havebeen observing. The market has a way of leveling these "needs" over time in a more organic way. 4. One can only wonder where the City of Kalispell is with its capacities for water and sewerinfrastructure. Does the city have the necessary water rights and water right service areas for these large developments? Does the city have the necessary wastewater discharge permitcapacity to serve these additional communities? It seems odd to me that our cities never seem to simply say they have reached their capacities on these services and that only infill projectswill be considered. They always seem willing to extend service to whomever is making the request. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Susan K Foster3640 Whitefish Stage Kalispell MT 59901 406.249.5765susankfoster406@gmail.com From:Aimee Brunckhorst To:Kirstin Robinson; Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen Subject:FW: EXTERNAL Tronstead Meadows / Whitetail Crossing Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 11:42:00 AM From: Joel Witmer <jgwitmer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:32 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Tronstead Meadows / Whitetail Crossing Dear Planning Board Members, In an effort to make this brief, we would like to express our opposition to the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing development and annexation as it is proposed. For reference, my wife and I are residents on Sirucek Ln, just off Transtad. The following are what we see as significant potential liabilities and safety issues. -The roadway will only be widened where the development would be. Tronstad is a narrow, county road with rolling knolls that obstruct driving views, and has no line separating traffic. This becomes particularly dangerous during months with snow on the ground when the road narrows more from snow pack on the shoulders and snow drifts frequently form. To make it worse, the road study shows that speeds onTronstad Rd are well above the 35 mph speed limit, and personal experience has yielded several close calls with vehicles coming from the opposite direction. The addition of 355 homes on Tronstad will only inflame the hazardous conditions that already exist, as Tronstad is already used as a cut-through by so many people. -Entering onto Whitefish Stage Rd is tough enough with the poor design of the intersection and limited views for cars traveling SB. Larger vehicles turning SB onto Whitefish Stage are forced to cross into the NB lane, creating a safety hazard. Thehigher vehicular traffic will only exacerbate the problem, creating a likely increase in accidents. -The drop offs on the side of the road on both Tronstad and Whitefish Stage Rd willmost certainly be the cause for increased vehicles going off the road and into a ditch with the higher increase in traffic flow. -Bicycles and pedestrians are challenged with the current traffic conditions onTronstad. The greater traffic flow caused by the large development would all but drive bicycles and pedestrians from utilizing this road as a means of travel. -With the increase in vehicles driving down Sirucek Ln and through Ponderosa Estates, even since the addition of Quail Meadows, has created a safety concern for families walking and biking through the peaceful, serene neighborhood as the roadway is significantly narrower. This area is not designed as a through roadway as it is a private road, but it is used as one. In an effort to avoid going down to Whitefish Stage, human nature will automatically motivate people to drive through the privateneighborhood creating increased safety risks for residents. These are just a few of the significant concerns resulting from the addition of this high density neighborhood in a beautiful, rural area. Nothing about the design fits withinthe proposed location, and the previous items stated are significant liabilities and safety concerns that must be considered. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and we are trusting the council to do theright thing. Joel & Kelly Witmer 361 Sirucek Ln From:Tony Sisneros To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL TRONSTAD MEADOWS/WHITETAIL CROSSING REZONE Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 11:42:55 AM KALISPELL PLANNING BOARD. 25 LOT REDUCTION DOES NOT CHANGE THEFACT INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN NOT ADD SUPPORT. 2 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN PROGRESS ALREADY WITH DETRIMENTAL IMPACTON OUR ROADS AND NEIGHBORHOOD . THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE SILVERBROOK ESTATES WEST OF TRONSTAD RD. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOWOUR PLANNING BOARD CAN APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND RISK THE SAFETY TO THE PUBLIC. IT SEEMS BACKWARDS ON BUILDING MORE HIGHDENSITY HOMES WITHOUT FIRST IMPROVING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE HIGH DENSITY TO COME. PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHAT YOURAPPROVING IN ZONE CHANGE. I UNDERSTAND GROWTH WILL CONTINUE . BUT IT NEEDS TO BE IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY. THANK YOU FOR YOU TIME. TONYSISNEROS 136 TRONSTAD RD AND 154 TRONSTAD RD From:Colby Shaw To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Road Photos for Public Comment Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 12:14:22 PM [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hello Board, I wanted to send you photos so you can see the following concerns: 1. Frist 3 photos are the intersection of Tronstad Road and Highway 93. The center line from Silverbrook road to Tronstad Road is 45 feet and will be a skewed intersection unless property is acquired. There is 3 acres on the Northeast Side of Tronstad and Highway 93 intersection owned by the Myers Family Revocable Trust and per the planning staff they anticipate this being commercial space and a design could be rendered. Rick Myer used to own Country Animal Clinic just a block north of this same side of Highway and good chance they would sell. Developers says MDOT can get behind a skewed intersection that the developer proposed? Is this the right traffic intersection designed with this area being a low point in the Valley and fog socks in thick from Nov. through April. This could easily affect depth perception of drivers with the Fog. This Traffic Intersection is being designed and installed over one subdivision? This will affect everyone who lives and visits in the Flathead Valley. Can you the board and City Council get behind a skewed intersection? 2. The 4th photo is the intersection at Whitefish Stage. You can see Tree’s and fence blocking the view on the Southwest side of the intersection and a large tree on the Northwest side of the intersection. MDOT wants this addressed before development. Has this been done? 3. Picture #5 is the lot owned by Dan Munzing and Ming Lovejoy. Developer stated they will improve Tronstad Road in front of Koenig Subdivision and add a sidewalk connection to proposed subdivision and Quail Meadows. You can see in this photo it could take out Dan and Mings Fence and trees. Also, if the improvement to Tronstad Road in front of Koenig Subdivision and if proposed subdivision approved, all 4 sides of subdivision could be surrounded by City of Kalispell. This subdivision does not want to be annexed by the City. Can the Board make a condition this will not happen if approved? 4. Last picture would be the Blind Hill just East of Sirucek Lane. A lot of traffic will leave to head east towards Whitefish Stage, and you can’t see a car or pedestrian until both reach the peak of the hill simultaneously. 5. The 30- and 40-foot buffer on the border of Koenig Subdivision would need to be 40 feet to insure to keep the trees and have a walking path. 30 feet would only cover the trees as they are staggered and 2-3 trees deep. Need and extra 10 feet for a walking path. Developer asks for a SID, please do not grant as this should be developed by developers own merits and finances, not the Cities. In fact, if approved planning board members should require developer to put money in a bond or some sort of deposit to help construct a pedestrian path that connects Tronstad Road south towards Rose Crossing. Thank you Colby Shaw 406-261-1092 From:Colby Shaw To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Road Video you can download, shows intersections and blind hills Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 12:18:22 PM https://we.tl/t-TncQ0M8Saa From:Mary Olsen To:Kalispell Planning Board Subject:EXTERNAL Opposition to Tronstad development Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 1:40:02 PM There have been many concerns voiced on the traffic issues with such a large development. There are other infrastructure areas to be addressed also, such as the growth to the number of school aged students. I saw a comment that this new development would be similar to the ones near by. How will our schools be able to handle all the kids that will be coming to these new developments. Ones already recently completed, ones under construction, such as the construction near the sports fields, and now potentital new ones like Tronstad. I hope there is a plan for funding for this and not looking at increased taxes for current residents. Yes there will be new taxes with new homes, but it will not cover the additional funding needed for road development, schools, etc. Please don't let the developers get rich off our land, then disappear and leave the fallout to the current residents. Besides the road development that will be needed for roads like Tronstad, Whitefish Stage, who is going to pay for the additional space, teachers, supplies needed at all the local schools. Or even for new schools. Currently it is hard when traveling on 93 and needing to get into one of the middle turn sections. If there are more than two cars in that space, it becomes a dangerous area. People just pull into wherever in that space for their turn. Car coming in the opposite direction does the same. If there is a truck of any type, it can block your vision and you have to wait for the other car to turn so you can see to cross where you want to turn. Increased traffic from another large housing development in that area is going to make it a dangerous nightmare. October 7, 2024 Dear Kalispell Mayor and City Council, My name is Brenda Oberlitner and I reside at 36 Wintercrest Ridge, Kalispell Montana. This le�er is in re sponse to the From:Chris or Jamie Burger To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 7:46:49 PM Dear planning board members, I am expressing my concerns about the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing development. Over the past three years, our city has experienced explosive growth, every day we see it in housing prices and congested traffic. And now comes another developer who wants to shoehorn in a property so they can cash in and leave taxpayers having to pay for infrastructure and deal with the repercussions. There have been so many accidents already in the last few years in that area, the developer should have to pay for road improvements, pay foremergency services, and schools. Why should they be allowed to build all these homes and then walk away counting their money while those of us just trying to take care of our families and live our lives will now have to foot the bill to improve the infrastructure of that development? I would ask that the planning board only approvedevelopments of this size after the developer has implemented infrastructure improvements. I think that we would find that if this was the case there wouldn't be so many developers trying to squeeze in giant developments and sticking us with the bill for infrastructure improvements. The roads are too narrow and dangerous for theamount of cars that would travel to and from the proposed development, the closest school Edgerton is already at capacity with close to 30 students per class, The intersection of Whitefish Stage and East Reserve is a nightmare to navigate. I ask the board to please look at all the negatives that will affect the community and pleasevote down this development until the developer puts in actual infrastructure improvements. Thank you for taking the time to read this email and for your service to our community. Christopher Burger From:MELISSA LOVEJOY To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Vote NO on Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 8:30:04 PM Dear Planning Board Members, We write to you today as young parents concerned about the future of Kalispell. We grew up in the valley, moved away and hope to return to purchase a home in Kalispell in the next few-several years. Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing may promise new housing, but it also threatens the long-term safety and character of the community in which we grew up. Growth is important, but it needs to be well thought-out and done responsibly. This development brings more than just homes—it brings traffic congestion, safety risks, and an enormous strain on existing infrastructure. The blind hills and narrow lanes of Tronstad Road are already hazardous, especially during winter. Adding 3,300 daily vehicle trips to an inadequate road is a recipe for disaster. For crying out loud, this developer has spent almost 2 years working with the city directly to put this plan together and has already been turned down because of safety, traffic, and lack of infrastructure. In short, he just hasn’t adequately addressed the concerns that prompted the City Council to turn down the last proposal June 17th. He came back with practically the same proposal, now R-2 with a PUD and 25 fewer homes. What a joke and, honestly, an insult. As parents of young kids, we’re happy to give you some great advice about saying NO when your kid has tried the same trick twice, hoping you won’t notice! Just like we tell our kids, “No means no”—and this proposal, dressed up with minor tweaks, still falls short of what our community needs. If it wasn’t good enough then, it certainly isn’t good enough now. Please don’t risk the safety of our children and neighbors for an out-of-town billionaire developer who is motivated by his own short-term gains, and who is looking to cash out by selling lots and not even sticking around long enough to create community. Kalispell deserves growth that enriches our community, not developments that undermine it. We urge you to vote NO until the developer can present a plan that fully addresses these serious concerns. Sincerely, Ryder and Melissa Day Kalispell > Williston, ND > Kalispell again soon From:Mari Sisneros To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Development Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 6:18:26 AM I want to take a moment of your time to oppose the potential new development of Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing. A 25 lot reduction from the previous proposal, does not change the fact that the inadequate infrastructure still can not support the proposed development. There are already 2 developments in progress on Tronstad Road that are overloading the roads and hampering the safety of our rural neighborhood. The traffic through this neighborhood is also impacted by the large development of Silverbrook Estates, located directly across Highway 93, at a very dangerous intersection. Please, protect our rural, farming neighborhood. Do not accept this proposed subdivisionplan. Thank you, Marian Sisneros136 Tronstad Rd. Kalispell MT 59901 From:Travis Taylor To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 7:09:09 AM Members of the Council, I am vehemently against this proposed subdivision. The density of this proposal is highly inconsistent with the surrounding area. Tronstad road is a rural country road. It's sufficient at the current traffic volume, but it'sgrossly under built for the volume of traffic that would be created by this subdivision. Simply improving the frontage in front of the subdivision will do nothing to address the actual safetyissues of the road. Our community doesn't need this level of density here and shoving this subdivision into this location while ignoring the very real safety concerns is simply reckless. Please vote No on this proposal. We must plan for the future and grow responsibly. We musthave infrastructure first. Respectfully, Travis Taylor 1210 Birch Grove RdKalispell, MT Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer From:Rheannon Music To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Development Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:00:49 AM Dear Planners, I am a Whitefish Stage area resident with major concerns about the proposed Tronstad development. While I am sure you have heard many, my thoughts are based around congested unsafe trafficflow, school kids’ safety for pick up and drop off, the constant winter drifting which makes Tronstad a place of certain concern (people hit the ditch near the storage units EVERY year)and the annexation of locals into city limits. People who live out here do so for the purpose of being out of town and out of the taxes and rules which govern it. To annex this area into town directly violates the will and purposes oflocals who would be forced to abide by rules and costs that they did not choose. Please vote NO on the Tronstand development. It’s not in the best interests of locals, and it’s not being backed by locals. I appreciate your time and consideration as you faithfully serve and uphold the desires ofKalispell citizens. Thankfully, Rheannon MacFarland From:Aimee Brunckhorst To:PJ Sorensen; Jarod Nygren; Kirstin Robinson Subject:FW: EXTERNAL Do NOT approve the permit request for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:26:00 AM Importance:High Submitted the same comment three times in the same time frame. From: Amy Vanderbilt <avandy325@live.com> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 9:25 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: EXTERNAL Do NOT approve the permit request for Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Importance: High Dear Kalispell City Council members, I respectfully (resubmit with pertinent updates for the latestproposal) submit the following comments regarding the proposed development and annexation of the 110-acre parcel on the north side of Tronstad Road; the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing. Even at the revised density of 250+ housing units, this proposal is NOT APPROPRIATEfor this location now or in the future. The current authorized lot size of 2.5 acres should remain in place. There should be a full open public comment period to invite and hear/read comments from the public regarding this (or similar) high density As a full-time, year-round resident living approximately ½ mile south of this proposed development on Jackson View Trail, I am extremely concerned about the impacts to our rural lifestyle in this area east of US93 based on the following points:       Traffic: While the (revised) plan addressed impacts for Tronstad and US 93, Whitefish Stage is largely ignored. As you likely know the section ofWhitefish Stage between Reserve and Hodgson has been of concern since the late 1990's when former County Commissioner Dale Williams gained notoriety for taking people on a high-speed tour of the road. There are grossly inadequate and very unsafe sections of road shoulder, very deepditches, no bike lanes, and already congested traffic from cars attemptingto avoid the Reserve congestion, using Tronstad and Rose Crossing as alternates. The proposed development of 380+ homes on Tronstad would significantly add to these stated problems.             Long-Term Infrastructure Planning: There has not been a comprehensive plan regarding roads, traffic, and infrastructure in this area. As evidenced from the soon-to-be-started improvements to Reserve,the project did not look at Whitefish Stage - nor provide future plans - for that road. The proposed Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossingdevelopment would rapidly exacerbate the existing problems. There is no timeline yet (that I am aware of) for Montana Department of Transportation funding for rebuilding of Whitefish Stage north of Reserveand such a large development near Whitefish Stage should be tabled until such time as that rebuild occurs. It is foolhardy to consider a subdivision of such scope and size without having the adequate infrastructure in place before hand.       Traffic Study: The study associated with the proposed development was a huge underestimate of Whitefish Stage activity. Try coming north on Whitefish Stage most afternoons during the school year! That doesn'teven account for summer traffic when Reserve (and now Rose Crossing) traffic is exponentially higher at all times of the day. Vehicles routinely have to sit through at least three or four traffic light cycles to continue north across Reserve, and again the addition of 380+ homes wouldexacerbate this dramatically. The associated study seems to have been conducted in a perfunctory manner to check off a box and completed when traffic volume was at its lightest time of the year, in February!       Kalispell City Water Supply Concerns: With the recent PFAS/ PFOS contamination in the northern Kalispell Grandview wells, it does not make sense to add so many homes to the system until the existing issue is resolved. With the March 2024 well re-testing, the northern Grandviewwell tested at 13 ppt, well over the newly-established EPA maximumallowable 4 ppt. This is a no-brainer decision; STOP!       Impacts to historic rural life style, lack of consideration forongoing open space in long range planning for Flathead County:Kalispell and Flathead County are some of the fastest growing areas in the country. We are in danger of "killing the golden goose" if growth and development continues at the rate it has been at for the last few years.Yes, there (has been) is a dire need for affordable, sustainable housing forthose who live and work in Kalispell. But I urge you (the Planning Board) to step back and assess how many housing starts and apartments we currently have under construction right now. I submit that we are closer tomeeting the projected long term goals than we realize. This developmentwill (NOT EVEN) address affordable housing needs anyway. Impacts of Cumulative Night-Sky Pollution: We have lived in our house since 1998. We used to see the Milky Way from our yard due east of Ponderosa Estates That stopped when the Ford Dealership moved to its current location. We were away when it opened. Upon our return, itwas like a new city had been built where the Ford dealership now resides. Now granted, the dealership installed far more lights than they received approval for and the light poles and fixtures are white (rather that thedark color that the Architectural Committee approved), but there is now a new Costco and may Toyota rumored to being under construction in the nearby field and more and more light pollution just keeps adding to the problem. With no control over the brightness of LED light emissions, there is no telling how bright the Flathead Valley night sky will get. I, for one, am extremely concerned about the effects of cumulative night sky pollution in the north end of Kalispell and the Flathead Valley near Glacier National Park. What will 380+ new homes and street lights add to the area north of Tronstad and Whitetail Crossing? More night-skypollution that most of the residents currently living north of Reserve doNOT want and did not move to this currently rural area to experience. Given these concerns, I respectfully request that you (again) deny the Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties application to amend the growth policy. While I am in favor of affordable housing (where there is comparable housing) density, which this development would likely (still) NOT provide anyway, the lacking infrastructure, increased traffic and increased safety and water safety issues do not support the city's approval of TronstadMeadows & Whitetail Crossing until such time as the above stated issueshave been addressed. I implore you NOT to approve this permit request under thesecircumstances!!! Sincerely, /s/ Amy Vanderbilt 684 Jackson View TrailKalispell, MT 59901406-752-7660 avandy325@live.com From:Emma Lovejoy To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:30:05 AM Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, My name is Emma Lovejoy, and I’m writing to voice my opposition to the rezoning andpreliminary plat proposal for the Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing subdivision. My fiancé and I are young homeowners in the valley. We’ve been working and saving sincehigh school, focused on building our future and owning a home. Last year, we were able to purchase our first house in Marion, but now we’re excited to move closer to Kalispell andplant roots in the heart of the community. While we understand the need for additional housing in the area, this particular development—Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing—raises serious concerns. This high-density 355-lot subdivision, located near my parents’ home on Tronstad Road, seems like more of arushed attempt at development than a well-thought-out, community-focused plan. It’s being spearheaded by an out-of-state developer who has multiple developments across the country,and it’s clear that local interests are being sidelined for profit. One major issue is the lack of thoughtful planning when it comes to infrastructure, trafficflow, and emergency access—issues that were central to the rejection of the previous proposal just a few months ago. The slight reduction in the number of lots—from 380 to355—does little to address the real concerns, particularly around traffic congestion and safety on already stressed roads like Tronstad Road. The Growth Policy which is your own guideline for community prioritizes the creation of walkable, bikeable, and connected neighborhoods, ensuring new developments are integratedinto the existing community fabric. But Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing threatens to create an isolated, high-density cluster of lots that will put additional strain on the area'salready inadequate infrastructure, especially when it comes to traffic and emergency services. Growing up in Silverbrook Estates, I saw firsthand what a well-planned community looks like. Silverbrook wasn’t just a collection of houses—it was built with proper infrastructure,multiple access points, and considerations for safety and traffic management. This is the type of thoughtful development Kalispell deserves. Unfortunately, the current TMWCproposal doesn’t come close to meeting that standard. The safety of families, especially those with children, should be at the forefront of anydevelopment decision. This proposal overlooks essential infrastructure that’s needed to support a development of this size and scope. Without clear, actionable plans for improvingroad safety, emergency access, and traffic flow, approving this rezoning would put the community at risk. We’re asking you to vote “no” on this rezoning to R-2 with a PUD and preliminary plat proposal. Approving it now, without addressing these critical concerns, would be adisservice to the residents of Kalispell—both current and future. We need responsible growth that aligns with Kalispell’s long-term vision, not quick-profit projects that will leave us dealing with the consequences for years to come. We trust that the Planning Board will prioritize the safety and well-being of our community and ensure any new development aligns with Plan-It 2035. Please vote against the TMWCrezoning and preliminary plat proposal until the necessary improvements are made, and it truly reflects the needs of our community. Thank you for your time and dedication to Kalispell’s future. Sincerely,Emma Lovejoy & Caden Gilmond 68 Jolly Hill Ln Marion From:Natalie Brown To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Public Comment Regarding Tronstad Meadows Development Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:53:05 AM To Whom it May Concern: As I resident of 1018 Birch Grove Road, I am writing to oppose the proposed Tronstad Meadows Development. Whitefish Stage and Birch Grove Road have already experienced significantly increased levels of traffic without this development. Birch Grove Road has become a thoroughfare for vehicles traveling to and from Highway 2 and it has caused the speed limits of 35 mph to not be honored, making the road unsafe for pets, livestock and residents. Whitefish Stage has also been experiencing elevated traffic levels where the speed limit of 50mph is often not honored. The proposed Tronstad Meadows development will only continue to overburden roads in this area and cause side roads to experience levels of traffic that they simply cannot accommodate. The area is already dense with residents as is, and previously residential areas and roads are being turned into cut throughs for drivers that do not respect that they are in areas that have pets, kids, and livestock also using those roads. As someone who owns livestock, these roads have already presented issues when hauling a trailer or crossing. The development would only continue to congest this area, overburden the roads, and make it unsafe for current residents. Natalie Brown From:Brian To:Kirstin Robinson; Brian Subject:EXTERNAL Tronsted Meadows-Whitetail Crossing Date:Monday, October 7, 2024 6:52:58 PM To the planning department: The proposed efforts by the developers to re-zone the 110 acre lot boarding my property by approximately 1,000 feet should be denied. The current infrastructure surrounding this property is not capable of safely accommodatingthe proposed increased volume of residential homes. The independent traffic study that Ming & Dan Munzing had conducted by an engineer with the required credentials to make this assessment has determined there are several flaws in thestate's findings. Before re-zoning can occur, major infrastructure improvements must be made around the entire perimeter of this proposed development and approved by an independent engineeringfirm. This proposed re-zoning classification is a danger to the community and other commuters in the area and therefore must be denied. Respectfully, Brian Kelly Get Outlook for iOS From:Corey Olofson To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Road - Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 9:57:10 AM Hello, I am writing in to voice my concerns about this development that will be going in front of thePlanning Board again on October 8th. I live farther down Whitefish Stage and have seen the increase in traffic in the area over the past few years. We do not have the infrastructure tosupport this subdivision at this time. Whitefish Stage is a narrow road with many busy intersections that do not have traffic controls. There isn't a day that goes by where there isn't aterrible accident or one that is narrowly avoided at many of these intersections: Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage, Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage. I wholeheartedly believe indevelopment in the valley and recognize the need for more housing but this is the wrong location. We need to be looking at increasing density within the current areas that have theinfrastructure to support it. Montana is a special place and with how development has been happening it is slowly ruining the beautiful landscape. There is a smart and thoughtful way todevelop the area and this location is not the right spot. Please consider the safety of the many people who travel Whitefish Stage on a daily basis and our families and children. Please vote no on this development. Thank you,Corey Olofson 406-253-053175 Running Bear Trl, Kalispell, MT 59901 From:ben hollett To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:16:57 AM To whom it may concern and the Kalispell city planning commission, I am writing about the proposed development of Tronstad Meadows and Whitetail Crossing. I think this development is a terrible and dangerous idea on many levels. I live at 2999 Whitefish Stage Road, less than a mile away from the proposed development. I can see the site discussed from my bedroom window so I will be directly affected by what happens there and can speak to the effect it will have on the neighborhood. I am a builder myself and am not opposed to development or “progress” as a general rule, but I believe it is important to take all factors into consideration including utility concerns, roadway and traffic safety as well as general aesthetic to the neighborhood. I personally am not opposed to the development of this land so long as it keeps with the current aesthetic and rural character of this area. The thought of putting over 300 homes in that area will not only detract from the neighborhood but more importantly will put a dangerous amount of increased traffic along the local roads that are undersized and under built already. My wife and I along with our 3 year old and newborn go for regular walks and these roads are unsafe now let alone with the increased traffic. In many areas, there is not even room to walk on the side of the road, as there is no shoulder at all. Believe me when I say that Tronstad especially, but Whitefish Stage as well, are not ready for this type of increased traffic. Putting 300+ homes in this area is asking for a tragedy to occur. As I said before, the idea of developing this area into a rural collection of homes and acreages is something that I am ok with and may even support, but to develop that area into hundreds of homes where none of the infrastructure is ready is completely ridiculous. I appreciate your concern, Ben Hollett From:Robert Nadvornick To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Road proposed subdivision Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:24:41 AM I am opposing the approval of these developments at this time for the following reasons: I have been a realtor for 48 years and not opposed to proper subdivisions. However, the Tronstad Road proposed subdivisions have too many issues to be approved at this time.Tronstad Road cannot handle the number of cars that the subdivision would have, and the intersection at Highway 93 and Tronstad Road is a deathtrap at this time much less with, allthe lots proposed. Tronstad Road has a dangerous blind hill and the intersection at Whitefish stage cannot handle the additional traffic. Our schools, fire and police departments cannot handle the additional number of homes. Thedeveloper should be required to allocate a certain amount of land for a new school, rather than putting that burden on the taxpayers. A traffic light and any infrastructure and road improvements should be completed before anydevelopment is started. This is the only way you can retain your leverage with the developers. I am a resident of Silverbrook Estates and every day dread trying to get onto HW 93 with the oncoming traffic from Tronstad Road. Sincerely, BOB “NAD” NADVORNICKCell 406-885-2700 robert.nadvornick@gmail.com From:Taylor Family To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows subdivision Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:28:48 AM Dear commission members, My family lives at 3045 Whitefish Stage Rd. We are adamantly opposed to this subdivision proposal. The infrastructure in this area is in no way suitable for a development of this size.Adding that many houses in such a small area would create very dangerous traffic conditions on both Tronstad and Whitefish Stage. Our community is rural in nature. Please don't wreckit. Please vote NO on this proposal. From:Castle Roamer To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Opposed to Tronstad Meadows Subdivision Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:51:55 AM It is difficult to even imagine putting that much traffic on a narrow county road with blind hills, steep ditches, and no real or substantial improvements to maintain or increase the level of service needed to serve a subdivision of the proposed size. To me it just seems too dense and unsafe. John King 1202 Birch Grove Rd Kalispell, Montana 59901 From:jnjambrose@icloud.com To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 12:04:40 PM To: Kalispell Planning Board Thank you for the countless hours you spend to make us safe, following the laws about new developments and thinking ahead regarding decisions you make. I am writing to ask you to please vote against moving forward on the Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing Development. I have lived on Sirucek Lane for 32 years. I understand there will be more and more subdivisions developed, but now is not the time for this one. Yes, the developers have reduced the number of lots by 25. That reduction does not address the impact the drivers from 355 homes would have on Whitefish Stage, Rose Crossing, Reserve Drive and Highway 93. Besides the impact on the straight aways and impatient drivers passing unsafely, the intersections present "real dangers". Just this morning going to Easthaven there were many cars coming in from both sides of Rose Crossing who had to wait for an opening in the north/south traffic on Whitefish Stage. Do you really want to impact Reserve Drive when sometimes you must wait for a couple lights to get anywhere? In closing, I thank you for your work. I simply ask that you vote “no" until the proper infrastructure is in place. I understand that beautiful farm land will be developed, but please don’t give permission until the roads and intersections are more safe. Blessings and thanks for listening. Sincerely, Jean Ambrose 445 Sirucek Lane, Kalilspell, MT 59901 From:drrjleopold@aol.com To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Why Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing is ill advised at this time Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 12:23:22 PM Planning Board: My family and I live on Whitefish Stage Road, about two miles north of Tronstad Road. In the past few months there have been four automobile accidents on Whitefish Stage Road within eyesight of our home. Three of them involved emergency vehicles and people were taken to the hospital, while the other one wiped out some of our rural mailboxes, including ours. Traffic on this two-lane rural highway with no shoulders (instead we have deep drainage ditches on both sides of Whitefish Stage Road) has already become overloaded with traffic. Not long ago we could walk safely along both sides of thisroad, but not anymore. We are also concerned with our rural water wells and how nearby developments, with a significantly higher density of dwellings may affect our legacy wells. My wife and I are now 'senior citizens' with evolving health issues, and we need to know that if we need medical assistance quickly that someone can get here to help us in a timely fashion. I am a nationally and internationally awarded engineer (just search my name) and I clearly see significant issues arising here without these new developments, let alone just adding more to our already-evolving problems. Of course developments are needed, but they need to be done properly and safely with the proper infrastructure in place to satisfy both the new and old homeowners. Until these infrastructure issues are properly addressed, we current homeowners are not convinced these proposed developments can move forward. Raymond J. Leopold, PhD3360 Whitefish Stage Rd From:Annegret Pfeifer To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstead Development Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 2:23:32 PM Dear Kalispell City Council and Planning Commission, Thank you for your consideration of community input. As a resident of Ponderosa Estate, the neighborhood south of the Tronstead Development I would like to ask you not to approve their new proposal. 25 houses less will not make an overall difference in the traffic density of this area. What you actually need to approve first is proper infrastructure for the anticipated growth in this area. It cannot be that this new development is counting on driving on a private route through a neighborhood to get to town. This private Sirucek Ln/Chestnut Dr/Ponderosa Lane then offers a left turn to HWY 93, which Tronstead already disallows for safety reasons. As a planner, those would be two NO's right there. A solution would be however a traffic light at Tronstead and HWY 93 N. The next issue is Whitefish Stage Rd going south. The road is very small with a steep drop-off that has caused already several deaths on this road. The solution is to widen that road to make it safe for heavy traffic. And last but not least, the intersection at Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage Rd. At the current moment already, this intersection had become very dicey. With Costco opening up in 2025 in that area, it will be even more dangerous for cars to cross Whitefish Stage Rd. The new development will add just that much more traffic and safety issues. The solution would be to add a traffic light there as well. Driving both roads, HWY 93 and Whitefish Stage Rd, on a daily basis, I hope you take my concerns in consideration. It is the safety of our community members. Many of the new development will have beginning drivers. I am not against new development, yet I am for smart traffic planning in our community. To allow a development of that size while disregarding the impact that makes traffic for all unsafe, will only disenchant our community further from our elected officials. I urge you to please stand up to the developers and let smart traffic solutions come first before you approve their plans. It should be in their, and Mr. Garners interest especially, to fully stand behind their plans and sales. Thank you for your consideration. -- Annegret Pfeifer 258 White Pine Road, Kalispell From:cobratransport To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Tronstad Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 3:15:52 PM Im a local resident and i oppose the tronstad development. I live on Tetrault rd in kalispell and i travel whitefish stage rd past tronstad rd multiple times per day. Whitefish stage is already abusy narrow, winding road and some drive it like a highway. For us who live nearby its the main way to kalispell and all the supporting intersections are too busy currently. Jeremy Mac Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From:Judy Martinson To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Opposition to Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Rezoning & Preliminary Plat Approval Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 3:11:49 PM Kalispell City Planning Board 201 1st Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Opposition to Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for Tronstad Meadows & Whitetail Crossing Dear Members of the Kalispell Planning Board, I have been a resident of Kalispell for seven years and lived in and worked in the Valley for 31 years. I currently live in Kalispell at 56 Empire Loop. I have worked as a Realtor in the Valley for those same amount of years and traveled over Tronstad more days than I can count. It is a way to drive from Silverbrook or Kalispell to the Airport or Columbia Falls. MDOT and Traffic Concerns MDOT is already focused on installing two new traffic lights north of Reserve Street on Hwy 93—one for the upcoming Costco development, set to open in 2025, and another at the Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing intersection. That’s already a major undertaking. Are we really expected to believe MDOT will prioritize yet another light just over a mile north, specifically for a 355-lot subdivision that’s still in the proposal stage? It’s unrealistic. Where is the proof MDOT intends to install a traffic signal at Tronstad Road and 93. And a light at Tronstad Road and Whitefish Stage Road especially for school buses. Overwhelming Tronstad Road We also know the reality of Tronstad Road: three blind hills, winter snowdrifts, and a single entry/exit point into and out of the proposed subdivision, with NO potential for adding ingress and egress to the west, north or to the east. Hundreds of truck trips and heavy equipment will overwhelm an unimproved county road. This is a recipe for accidents, strain on emergency services, and future infrastructure costs. Even if the development proceeds with a phased build-out, the projected 3,300 vehicle trips per day would place immense pressure on Tronstad Road, which already faces weight restrictions for four months out of the year. The developer’s proposal to only improve the section of Tronstad Road directly in front of their subdivision, while leaving significant portions to the east and west unimproved, would create a dangerous bottleneck. Even with hundreds of extra car trips and the equipment and heavy trucks that even phase one of this project would require, the proposed application and approach fails to provide a safe, sustainable solution for both existing residents and potential new homeowners in addition to egress and ingress of school children and school buses. Please consider the implications of attempting to build out a subdivision with 355 lots on an inadequately improved county road with dangerous intersections and no reliable plan or timeline for addressing these critical safety issues. i respectfully ask that the Planning Board and City Council prioritize the safety and well-being of Kalispell residents by either rejecting this application or imposing strict conditions that require comprehensive infrastructure improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Judy Martinson -- Judy Martinson Broker/Realtor National Parks Realty 601 Spokane Avenue Whitefish, MT 59937 www.NationalParksRealty.com Office: 406.862.8400 Mobile: 406.250.6644 Licensed in the State of Montana License #RRE-BRO-LIC-8420 From:Chardale Pool To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Proposed development Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2024 4:55:59 PM I am against the Tronstad Meadows subdivision because it's too dense and the road will be unsafe. I live at 1250 Birch Grove Rd. Kalispell Montana 59901. PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS (the “Amendment”) Tronstad Meadow and Whitetail Crossing and Zoning and Planned Unit Development Amendments (File # KA-24-08 & File # KPUD-24-03) WHEREAS, pursuant to § 76-2-305, MCA, the City of Kalispell (“City”) must accept written protests from property owners against the proposed zoning Amendments described above before the close of the public hearing before the Kalispell City Council; WHEREAS, in the case of a written protest signed by the owners of 25% or more of the area of the lots or units within 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change, the Amendmenst shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the Kalispell City Council; and WHEREAS, the Amendments requires seven (7) property owners who live within 150 feet from a lot included within the proposed change to sign a written protest in order to trigger the requirements of § 76-2-305, MCA. NOW, THEREFORE, the following property owners who live within 150 feet from a lot included within the proposed change, hereby protest the Amendments, File # KA-24-08 & File # KPUD-24-03 _,,., Owner Name(s): Scanned with � CamScanner· I attest that, on October 10, 2024, the written protests above were delivered by e-mail to the Kalispell Planning Department c/o PJ Sorenson, 201 1st Ave E, Kalispell, MT 55901; psorensen@kalispell.com; Name:_Michelle T. Weinberg Signature: /s/ Michelle T. Weinberg cc: planning@kalispell.com