Loading...
Other Comments and SubmittalsGood evening. My name is Bryan Schutt. I am president of the Kalispell City Planning Board. As the City Council deliberates the GLC, I felt I should describe some of the discussions the Planning Board had on this project_ It is a very large project and it deserves a commensurate review by our local government. One of Kalispell's advantages as we grove is that we can see how various ideas have fared when built elsewhere. And as you look at growth across the west, you can see the same patterns being built and how well they succeed. Myrt Webb, former city manager of C .Falls, wrote a really good editorial in the paper a few weeks ago. He described how roadways are defined not by their names or highway numbers, but by their traffic carrying -functions. From local roads through arterials up to major highways (he calls them mobility corridors); each road has a set of characteristics that help it fill its particular role. And a road can really only be one type of road at any one time. The characteristics that make a road suitable for residential use are lost when it becomes an arterial. And a free -flowing highway does a terrible job as an urban arterial. There are dozens of examples where perfectly good highways have been ruined by the land use decisions around them. Drive Highway Z east out of Spokane. Drive Highway 95 north out of Coeur -de -lane. You can even drive Deserve down in Missoula, if you have the time. 'What all of those roads have in common is that the traffic -carrying capacity was sacrificed in favor of providing more access to roadside businesses. As access points multiplied, up went more stoplights, down went the average speeds, and those roads were no longer efficient ways to get from Point A to B, but rather a low -speed urban arterial serving adjacent businesses. once you allow urban densities of development without controlling, coordinating, and rationalizing the highway accesses, you won't ever install enough traffic lights or add enough turn lanes. Once we give up the free - flowing character of a. highway and replace it with an urban arterial road you will never get that character back. Keeping highway 93 between Kalispell and Whitefish as afree-flowing mobility corridor has been along -held planning goal in the Flathead. Dote that l am not saying Highway 93 will be free of development_ There are many good reasons for growth to happen near Ili ghway 93. Utilities I Ines are there, compact growth can. reduce sprawl, city services are cheaper to deliver, etc. There will be development moving north of this town. But we can avoid the same traffic mistakes other cities have made, and we can preserve highway 93 as the mobility corridor that has been envisioned. In designing the south end of the west -side bypass, NIDOT declined to put in an interchange from the bypass onto Hwy 93, opting instead for a traffic signal. Their rationale was that enough strip -style development with uncontrolled access was already happening to both the north and south and a free -flowing interchange would be a waste of resources. We are doing a much better j ob on the north side of town. Between the new four -lane section coming south and the junior interchange that will happen at Church Drive, we are piecing together the sort of mobility corridor that was envisioned in our North 93 planning efforts. The Forth 93 plan is all about limiting and rationalizing highway access while providing safe and efficient transportation to the adjoining development. The planning board really wrestled with how to reconcile the scale of this development with that desired character of Highway 93. At build -out, this project may generate 75,000 car trips per day. This is triple what Main Street is through downtown today. when a project of this scale is inserted into the road network, its traffic loads must be distributed as widely as possible. I know that whitefish Stage Road isn't much to look at right now, but it will eventually be an urban arterial, with intersections and signals to match. Directing more of the Wolford traffic onto whitefish Stage would certainly help. Planning now for a new signal at the southern access onto Reserve is in keeping with the urban character of that road, much more so than two or three new signals on 93. The Planning Board discussed limiting the north -bound 93 access to a right -in, right -out only. I personally felt it would give adequate access without compromising the highway. we deadlocked on that vote. we discussed capitulating on the access issue and accepting the two lights the developer is requesting. We deadlocked on that vote. I guess for you that is the crux of your decision ahead. How do we handle access onto 93, and how does this project integrate into the local traffic network? This town has worked long and hard to get funding for the west -side bypass. Based on getting that by-pass, we have made a great many planning decisions. We made a decision, to end the by-pass at Reserve to avoid the cost of a new bridge over the Stillwater River. We've made decisions about where the low --speed city streets should end and the open highway should began. This by-pass is integral to our future traffic solutions. Unfortunately, it has taken a long time to get this by --pass to come to be. But that does not mean we abandon it. If a by-pass is designed to allow free -flowing traffic around Kalispell, do we really want to end the by-pass into a string of red lights north of Reserve? That's not good planning, that's surrender. I understand that NIDOT has given its acceptance for two new lights for GLC. But we need to remember that traffic engineers are narrowly concerned with traffic counts and speed limits, not the overall character of the road and the city growing around it. The city of Kalispell intentionally wrote the Wolford project into the North 93 growth policy amendment so that we could have that control, so we could have some say over the character of our growing town. The traffic engineers in Helena do not have to live every day with the planning decisions they make for Kalispell. The people of Kalispell do. If we don't set a line here, what do we say to the next developer who wants to add signals out to Tronstad, or to Church Drive, or to Majestic valley? Do the math — if each new developer is allowed 2 or 3 signals per half -mile, there are 8-- I o traffic lights between here and the landfill. That is poor reactions substituting for good planning. And there must be consideration be given for hove we are going to pay for the infrastructure needed. by GLC. If making growth pay for itself is more than just a slogan, GLC is the kind of large-scale project that can afford to absorb those up -front infrastructure costs. I agree that it isn't fair to have the developer pay for an entire junior interchange at Rose Crossing. But providing a significant down payment on one is a reasonable request. If one -quarter or even one --half half of the cost of a junior interchange can be obtained, this money could be combined with some traffic impact fees, and can get us within striking distance of affording an interchange in a few years. Remember, it will be the wolford's customers using that Rose Crossing interchange too. An intersection that delivers his customers efficiently and safely to his lifestyle center is in his interests as well as ours. And also remember that in part, it was the prior planning efforts by the citizens of Kalispell and the Flathead that made this market so attractive to Mr. wolford. As he brings growth with him, it seems reasonable to make him (through his future customers) pay for a significant share of the costs associated with that growth. The planning board has forwarded to this council an update to the Transportation Plan. In that draft, there is a long list of road projects from the last transportation plan thirteen years ago. Some of those needs been accomplished, but the majority are still undone. with the volume of growth associated with the GLC, we will need an interchange at Rose Crossing sooner rather than later. Do we really want to add "Junior interchange at Rose Crossing & 93" as the first new itern on our next tor -do list? In a way, I ant glad I am not in your shoes. You've got to actually decide what the city of Kalispell will look like for decades to come. I understand that this is a great project, with Mr. wolford providing many amenities and perks. But the way the GLC is currently designed is not in keeping with the spirit of our plans for Highway 93. As our elected representatives, it is up to this city council to look out for the best long-term interests of Kalispell. l thank you for your time and wish you a good evening. Montana 2906 Five Percent Report - FHWA Safety http:/lsafety.thwa.dot.govlf►vepercend06mt.htm Montana 2006 Five Percent Report This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent & its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with Sections 148(c)(1 )(D) and 148(g)(3)iA), of Title 23, Unified States Code. Each state's report is to include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs. The reports included on this Web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road coverage. Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this Web site. Protection from Discov2a and Admission into Evidence --Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports. Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration, htt ://safe .fhwa.dot. Lov/safetealu/flveguidance.htm. Montana Department of Transportation FIVE PERCENT REPORT Pursuant to Federal Highway Administration guidance "Highway Safety Improvement Program, 23 U.S.C. 148 (c) (1) (1) 5 Percent Report" of April 5, 2006, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) presents the following information: Montana has over 59,000 miles of roads, spread over 145,000 square miles. Its estimated 2002 population is barely over 900,000 inhabitants. The Montana Highway Patrol records show 22,376 crashes in 2005. For 2005, the average number of crashes an the rural off -system roads was 8 crashes per 100 miles, compared to 19 crashes per 10 miles on the rural Interstates. The MDT highway program, that includes safety elements with each project, is compiled in the State Transportation improvement Program (STIP), that can be viewed at www.mdt.mt. ovl ublicationsldocslsti l2005sti final. df. For the 2006-2008 period, the program gives the following break down: Construction/Reconstruction $ 376.7 Million (51.9%) Resurfacing $ 142.8 Million (19.7%) RehabilitationNVidening $ 89.3 Million (12.3%) Bridge Replacement/Rehab $ 68.0 Million (9.4%) Spot Improvement/Safety $ 21.1 Million (2.9%) Miscellaneous $ 28.3 Million (3.9%) Highway safety does not involve just the Department of Transportation. Numerous agencies, Tribal governments and advocacy groups are involved. At the Federal level, the main agencies are the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety, Administration. At the State level, the main partners, besides MDT, are the Department of Justice with the Montana Highway Patrol and the Motor Vehicle Division, the Department of Public Health and Human Services and the Office of Public Instruction. At the local level, Police and Sheriff Departments, Public Works/Road Departments and the courts dealing with traffic issues participate in highway safety. In short, highway safety involves everyone. Most of these agencies are active stakeholders in the Montana Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan, that is being finalized. These stakeholders have selected the following focus areas: 1. Increase safety belt usage to 90%; 2. Reduce statewide alcohol -and drug -impaired fatal and incapacitating injury crashes; 3. Reduce Native American fatal crashes: 4. Reduce and mitigate the consequences of single vehicle run -off -the -road fatal and incapacitating injury crashes; of 3 I/7/2005 2:33 PM Montana 2006 Five Percent Report - F.HWA Safety http,.Hsafety.fhwa,dot.gov/fiveperc&it/O6mt.htm 5. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated transportation records and crash reporting, data management, and analysis system, accessible to all stakeholders, to manage and evaluate transportation safety, 6. Reduce young driver (under age 21) fatal and incapacitating injury crashes; 7. Establish a process to reduce crashes, injury crashes and fatal crashes in identified high crash corridors and locations; 8. Reduce fatal and incapacitating injury crashes involving trucks, and 9. Develop an effective and integrated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) delivery system. In addition to these nine priority emphasis areas, Montana adopted three additional emphasis areas: 1. Reduce fatal and incapacitating injury crashes in urban areas; 2. Reduce motorcycle fatal and incapacitating injury crashes, and 3. Reduce older driver fatal and incapacitating injury crashes. Figure 1 gives the number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries on Montana highways over the last ten years 1996-2005. Figure 2 illustrates the percent of belted injured occupants in crashes from 1995 to 2005. Figure 3 shows the alcohol related fatalities as percent of all fatalities in the 1996-2004 period. The Statewide crash rate was estimated at 2.64 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled in 1996 and 2.00 in 2005. As part of this Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan, MDT identified highway corridors with a combination of high crash severity rate and high number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries per mile, based mostly on 2000-2004 crash data. The severity rate is defined as the number of crashes with a fatality or an incapacitating injury times eight plus the number of crashes with a non -incapacitating injury or possible injury times three plus the number of property damage only crashes per million vehicle -miles traveled. The following corridors with highest ratings on the rural National Highways, rural State Primary and Secondary highways were identified. These segments were based on 10 plus mile lengths, except for the State Secondary roads were based on 5 plus mile lengths. 1-1 5 Boulder -Bernice 1-90 West of Frenchtown to Missoula 1-90 Homestake Pass US 2 Kalispell -- Hungry Horse MT 2 Pipestone Pass US 93 Kalispell - Whitefish MT 78 Red Lodge - Luther S-430 Canyon Ferry Road S-23 1 Green Meadow Drive S-269 East Valley Highway For the urban areas on the Interstate and on the combined National Highways and State Primary routes, the routes with the highest combination severity rate and high number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries per mile are: 1-1 5 Great Falls within urban limits and N-92 Missoula Reserve Street These corridors are located on the attached map in blue. MDT plans to establish a process to perform safety audits of these corridors. The intent is to develop low cost safety improvements and pursue strategies such as enforcement activities and public education, involving the disciplines of the participants in the development of the strategic highway safety plan. In addition the 10 plus mile on -system segments with the greatest number of severe crashes involving an occupant using no protective device are shown on the map in green. Another major problem in Montana is the alcohol and drug focus area. The map illustrates the 10 plus mile segments where the highest number of drivers, who had been using alcohol or drugs were involved in severe crashes. These corridors are depicted in red. The identification of these corridors will allow the safety stakeholders to concentrate their efforts in these areas and Statewide. of 3 I1712005 2:33 PM http://safety.fhwa,dot.gov/fivepercent/06mt.fitt In view of the late passage of the Federal Transportation Act SAFETEA-LU and recent guidance documents, MDT provides the latest list of Highway Safety Improvement Program projects approved by the Transportation Commission in January 2006. These sites were selected based on high crash rates, high severity rates, high number of crashes. Sites were also submitted for evaluation by local agencies, enforcement agencies and MDT Districts. The projects with the highest benefit/cost ratios are distributed with the following percentages by highway classification systems: Interstate 8% National Highway Non -Interstate 24% State Primary 24% Urban 6% Projects on collectors and local roads: State Secondary 30% Local roads 8% The attached map shows the location of the sites where the proposed improvements exceed $50,000. The attached Table 1 * summarizes the proposed improvements. Ail the partners involved in the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan hope that all these efforts will further improve the safety on Montana Highways. Contact Person: Pierre A. Jomini, P.E. Safety Management Engineer Montana Department of Transportation 2701 Prospect Avenue P.O. Box 201001 Helena, MT 59620-1001 pjomini@mt.gov of 3 117f2008 2.33 PM Print Versitp r http : Hwww. . da i Iy i nter l ak e. com/articles/2 00 7 /0 8 /2 6In ew s In e w s 41. p rt \. ...•�� y�%�--i',�q : tip. na.;v;=�b.�::.::++•;.: `:%tr;, . �.t-r..: :..::.:... :���....�.,,:�� u.`s,s. �e :cam>. �z'�:^ a',�,_. .�:= >• %� � ;:f>.:<s:a� ice:`. .. ..u, a'r'r�^ '.! �i :'r(�::1�' .l l Y nl` ".li.. y:\ :•:.-i^ .-'�,.. ':[f. a .i . �� �' ? :.�,< <^ .`•.: �r5v".. -rcri::si:E �.me�•P.:r .� `a'N., tir-. ..,.... � \: r W. „ri-. . r -c .. >.. w. `.. r� T ram. ' x 3c 01 ;y wr zz Grow with the flow By JOH N STANC. The Daily Inter Lake Can Kalispell"s sewage -treatment plant keep up with the volumes it will face during the next few years? The answer could be yes, if Kalispell is careful how it expands. But lots of factors come into play, and this is a question that has caught extra attention lately. On Aug. 14, Public works Director Jim Hansz told the Kalispell City Council that a close eye is needed on this issue. During the council meeting and in a later interview, he outlined his concerns. "You've got to be cautious. You've got to be mindful at the times you are making commitments," Hansz said. HERE IS the current situation. Kalispell's sewage -treatment plant is capable of processing an average of 3.1 million gallons a day, and is currently handling about 3 million gallons daily. Print Page As sewage gets treated in a secondary clarifier at the Kalispell wastewater Treatment Plant last week, a crew from COP Construction excavates a huge hole for two new bioreactor cells that will nearly double the amount of sewage the plant can handle. The sewage -treatment plant is nearly at full capacity: The plant is capable of processing an average of 3.1 million gallons a day, and currently is handling about 3 million gallons daily. The expansion is scheduled to be up and running by June 2009. Karen Nichols photos/Daily Inter Lake In June, the plant began a $20.5 million expansion to handle an average of 5.4 million gallons a day by late 2008 or early 2009. The expansion includes preliminary groundwork to enable it to expand to 7.5 million gallons a day if needed later. Meanwhile, Kalispell has been annexing major chunks of land on which developers plan to build thousands of homes. These include the recently annexed 1-square-mile Starling site, where 3,000 home are planned in the next 20 years. Then there are three chunks of land — with a fourth getting ready for annexation ---- that are extending Kalispell three miles north from west Reserve Drive to Church Drive, and are adding 1.7 square miles designated for extensive construction. Plus, there are numerous smaller sites being annexed almost continuously. Usually, when an annexation occurs, the city negotiates agreements that include how many homes it will allow on an annexed parcel. Hansz keeps tallying up those promised homes. On Aug. 14 he told the council when the sewage plant expands to 5.4 million gallons a day by 2009, all that extra capacity has already been promised to housing development projects on the books now. I/7/2008 I2:1.2 PM I/7/2008 I2:12 PM Print Versi �n i http://www.dailyinterlake.com/ar-ticles/2007/08/26/news/newsO I . prt That led some council members to wonder whether the city government should look into drawing some lines against other annexations. No conclusions were reached, other than this topic should be discussed more. Defining the issue in a clear-cut way is difficult. A complicating factor is how to keep tabs on the treatment plant's growth and Kalispell's construction plans in a relevant way. Here are some important milestones to consider: * Planned -Unit Development This is a contract between the city and a developer in which the government sets up the zoning and allows exceptions to that zoning in return for the developer's promises to mitigate those exceptions. This is done usually — but not always — when land is annexed and zoned. This is also when the city promises to deliver services -- such as sewage treatment --- to a specific number of homes in a project. And this is how Hansz tallies up the number of homes the sewage plant has promised to handle. * Preliminary plat This occurs when the City Council approves preliminary generalized plans for a project -- frequently for just one phase of construction for a fraction of land within the overall housing development. This is part of the sewage --plant picture because a city's approval of a preliminary plat leads to the developer sending sewage plans for a specific number of homes to the state Department of Environmental Quality for review. On .duly 25, the state sent an e-mail to Hansz to reinforce a state policy that it would not approve more homes than what the sewage plant can handle at that time. The exception is that plans must be in motion so the city can provide the extra required sewage plant capacity within one year of the final plat's approval. ■ Final plat This is the council -"approved detailed final plan for a project -- including the final number of homes. The state's approval for sewage capacity is needed before the council can pass a final plat. All this also leads to more complications on keeping tabs on treatment capacities. For example, Hansz looked at the city's promise to the Starling project under its planned -unit development agreement to supply sewage treatment to 3,000 homes to be built over the next 20 years in an estimated 15 phases. But a preliminary plat has been approved only for Starling's 63-acre first phase calling for 236 homes --- the only Starling number that the state Department of Environmental Quality counts at this time. If Starling spreads its remaining 2,800 homes across 20 years, the city is in good shape regarding the state sewage watchdogs, Hansz said. But Kalispell would lose most of its cushion with the state if Starling chooses to seek preliminary plats for the remaining 2,800 homes in the next year or two, he said. CONSEQUENTLY, market forces --- which govern how fast houses and apartment buildings are actually constructed -- come into play, said Hansz and City Planning Director Tom Jentz. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the four segments of Kalispell's still -growing 1.7-square-mile finger of land extending north of west Reserve drive. There is the 325-acre Silverbrook Estates, with the City Council approving a preliminary plat for the entire development of almost 600 houses and townhouses two miles north of the West Reserve Drive. That preliminary plat eventually led to the July 25 e-mail from the state agency. Then the city annexed the 81-acre Valley Ranch and the 181-acre Village Greens sites. Neither site has a planned -unit development agreement nor a preliminary plat, but are expected to build a few hundred homes. Add to this the 481-acre Glacier Town Center that's expected to seek annexation within a couple of months with a shopping center and hundreds of homes in plans that are still being mapped out. If Valley Ranch, Village Greens or Glacier Town Center get planned--unit--development agreements approved this year, that means Kalispell has promised more sewage treatment for homes on the drawing board for the next 20 years than 1/7/2008 12:12 PM 1/7/2008 12:12 PM Print Version http-//www.dailyinteriake.com/articles/2007/08/26/news/news0l.prt it will be able to handle in 2009, Hansz said. A similar scenario would unfold if the 500-plus-home willow Creep project southwest of Kalispell ever gets annexed with a planned -unit development, he said. MARKET FORCES add another wrinkle, Jentz and Hansz said. If a project such as willow Creek, Valley Ranch or Glacier Town Center gets through the red tape and builds more quickly than Starling, then Starling's later phases are more likely than the other projects to face vetoes from the state over sewage -treatment capacity issues, they said. Meanwhile, Kalispell expects to eventually expand to a 7.5-million-gallon-a-day treatment capacity. The triggering event for the planning, contracting and construction to begin will likely be when the plant is processing 4 million gallons daily, Hansz said. When that 4-million-gallon mark will be reached is anyone's guess. The formula to watch is Lhat orie hVITle equals 2.5 people, equals 250 gallons of wastewater a day. That means 4,000 homes equal 1 million gallons of needed treatment capacity. Since Kalispell's growth boom began in about 2002, it has added 278 homes in 2002, 193 in 2003, 480 in 2004, 378 in 2005, and 349 in 2006. That is an average of almost 336 new homes a year. Jentz said the construction boom has decreased slightly. He expects Kalispell to absorb roughly 300 new homes in 2007. Another consideration is that the number of homes counted in a final plat doesn't necessarily mean all of them will be built. And those constructed will be likely spread across several years. "All those projects are not going to be built out right away," Jentz said. Also, if the current population boom wanes, construction will slow down, said Jentz and Mayre Flowers, representing Citizens for a Better Flathead. In fact, Flowers worries that a drastic slowdown in housing construction a few years from now could lead to an expanded Kalispell sewage treatment that might be too big — which would translate to today's city residents paying more of the expansion costs than they would if new citizens did not materialize to help foot the bill. AT LEAST three other factors come into play when linking Kalispell"s growth with its sewage -treatment plant. Although the actual effects are difficult to determine, these factors are. • Rural Flathead County developers located near Kalispell usually want to annex their lands to the city to get access to the city's sewage -treatment plant. This is a major reason for the city's continual annexations. A potential Evergreen water & Sewer District sewage -treatment plant is being considered, with a feasibility study due by December. Right now, Evergreen ships its sewage to Kalispell`s treatment plant. It is legally entitled to 682,000 gallons a day of Kalispell"s plant's capacity, and actually uses 460,000 to 480,000 gallons a day. If Evergreen builds its own plant, that would free up 682,000 gallons of Kalispell's capacity. If fact, Kalispell already sometimes uses some of Evergreen's unused capacity when needed. If Evergreen builds a plant, that would nullify its current contract with Kalispell, an agreement that also forbids Evergreen from expanding beyond its current borders. If that scenario materializes, a rural developer could choose between hooking up to Evergreen or Kalispell. ■ By 2012, the state is expected to put a limit on the amount of nutrients -- such as nitrogen and phosphorus -- that the Flathead River can discharge into Flathead Lake. The Flathead River limit will lead to smaller limits that individual city sewage plants can discharge into the river and its tributaries. Kalispell's plant already discharges nutrients drastically below state limits. But increased volumes of wastewater could trim much of Kalispell's current cushion. If Evergreen builds a plant, that would result in recalculating and decreasing the amounts that other Flathead River 1/7/2008 12:12 PM 1/7/2008 12:12 PM Print Version htfip://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2007/08/26/news/newsO Lprt 19 basin plants can discharge. Ultimately, Kalispell's sewage -treatment plant is just one piece of the puzzle in determining what affects the city's ability to handle growth, Flowers and Jentz said. Other factors include the ability of the city's roads handle extra traffic, whether enough fire stations and firefighters are in place for timely responses, the number of police officers, the availability of water, and so on. Also, Flathead County's abilities to handle the same problems are linked with Kalispell"s capabilities, Flowers said. She said Kalispell's sewage -plant growth "is one symptom in a bigger issue. we need a comprehensive strategy between the city and county to control growth." Reporter John Stang may be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at .jstang2dailyinterlake.com 1/7/2008 12:12 PM 1/7/2008 12:12 PM January 7, 2008 Dear Mayor and City Council people, My name is B.J. Carlson and I am speaking on behalf of N93N. we reached agreement with Mr. Wolford on February 13, 2007 and have been working to the finalize the settlement and dismiss the lawsuit since that time. As you know, Mr. Wolford has generously donated 5 acres to be used for the benefit of the community. We applaud him for that as we see this 5-acre parcel which is adjacent to a central park as being pivotal to enhancing the project. Our lawyers are now conferring about how to articulate this donation as a part of the PUD conditions and to finalize Exhibit E, The Dedication of the Community Parcel. It is our hope that we can finalize the settlement and dismiss the lawsuit in the very near future. Again we want to call attention to our concerns about the configuration and timing of the road systems necessary to effectuate the community facility. As currently proposed, while the community parcel, and a cul-de-sac road into it, is in phase 1, the main access roads running north and south adjacent to the parcel and the east and west Lake McDonald Road are not planned until phase 3. As a result, while the sunset clause for the donation is 5 years, full access on these roads is not scheduled until phase 3, or 2014. We believe that these access issues would make it more difficult to attract a viable project sponsor up front, and if the facility is developed, will make access to it after it is constructed difficult. We strongly urge that the east/west Lake McDonald Road, and the north/south road adjacent to the Park, be completed in Phase 1 so that people get to the community facility, both from the direction of the Glacier Town Center and from Whitefish Stage road. Many people are here tonight because of their concerns about the best way to manage traffic on Highway 93. We too are concerned about highway 93 and the additional traffic that The Glacier Town Center brings. Now is the best time to look at this situation carefully to ensure that the long term interests of this rapidly growing community are met. Impact of single traffic light at rush hour Chapter 213 Impact of single traffic light at rush hour Traffic signals seem like a reasonable approach. But the reality is that traffic is at a standstill in, all directions most of the time. The IMPACT of a single traffic signal on a highway or street Is to drastically reduce the maximum traffic carrying capacity of that road. During rush hour traffic is always backed up when a light turns green, because more vehicles are arriving at the stoplight than can get through it. In a case study, on a road designed to carry 12,000 vehicles per hour at 45 mph, a single traffic light reduced roadway capacity by 70 percent to 2,520 vehicles per hour for westbound traffic. Here is why. The right-of-way time (green light) must be "shared" by traffic in all directions, and provision made for amber signals to warn drivers the light is about to change to red. In the example used above, recorded during rush hour at a 4-way intersection with two lanes in each direction for through traffic, and fuui- left -turn lanes, the entire cycle of the traffic light took 182 seconds (see illustration 5). During this time the light was green for through westbound traffic for only 39 seconds (12-6 seconds out of every minute). But that's only part of the problem. What happens when the light finally turns green? Seconds pass as the first vehicles slowly crawl into the interchange and accelerate. Some current vehicles have gauges which show how many miles per gallon (MPG) the vehicle is achieving at any given time. During initial acceleration, the engine must propel the dead weight of the 2,500 to 5,000 pound car from a complete standstill. Engine speed (RPM) rises dramatically as gasoline pours into the engine. The result: a fuel efficiency of 5 to 10 MPG! This highly inefficient use of fuel occurs at every traffic light in the country, every day of the year. In addition, consider the billions of barrels of gasoline burned sifting at traffic signals, all the extra pollution; wear on the vehicle's brakes at each stop-, and wear on transmissions with each acceleration. Finally, have you considered whether traffic signals are SAFE? Practical experience shows us that frustrated or impatient drivers, instead of slowing and stopping when a light turns amber, actually ACCELERATE in order to get through the light, and sooner or later, cause accidents and carnage Finally, consider the danger to pedestrians using "walk" "don't walk" signals at traffic -light -controlled intersections. Typically, the "walk" signal is very brief, and starts to go amber while A - -J", - - - . . 1, - of - - . - . - cl- . .. t. - - - - L, - - -Irl- - the waiting game Illustration 5 The Trouble with Traffic Lights r'? see animation Red light for through traffic Gieen fight for left tum Amber, light for *ft turn 3 Green light for through traffic Amber light for through traffic 4 116 secs 39 secs 0 secs In secs In the example above, through traffic only had a green light 12.6 seconds out of every minute. This resulted in a flow rate of only 2,520 cars per hour. of 2 1/7/2008 12:20 PM A kAQ,AAd- 0%0 46A %&A &1%0 @JkC_JJ It k "& I L&,3A I I 11UPLM - t-AUL%J I I I CLL%,U A I k2l I NM) I Lilt I... tiLto://www.automateau,,ansnort.Com/htMlvO2b.html pedestrians are naff way across ine intersection. i ne pedestrian must exercise blind faith Mn motorists who may run the red light, dash across the amber light, or turn right on red while paying scant attention. For a young pedestrian with 20.20 vision, strong legs and great reflexes, crossing the road may seem an exciting sport. But for anyone who is elderly, infirm, or has poor vision, or is simply not fully alert, "walk" "don't walk" can be a frightening, nerve-wracking and perhaps deadly experience. To return to our traffic light example.... Gradually, after the first vehicles have accelerated through the traffic -signal -controlled interchange and accelerate, following vehicles start going faster, and get through the intersection at increasing speeds. But no vehicle goes through without stopping for one or more cycles of this stoplight. The capacity of the roadway is limited by how many vehicles can get through the light while it is green, and these vehicles are all traveling at much less than the design speed of the roadway. Each succeeding light will similarly cause delay because traffic will arrive at near design speed, then slow down to the rate it can get through the intersection. The capacity of the highway is much less affected by the addition of subsequent stoplights. That's because the first light causes a lesser traffic flow for subsequent lights (but each stoplight causes cumulative delays for the indWual driver). This is a simplified analysis of a very complex equation. It is also why a 5-mile commute on a major roadway with several traffic lights can take 30 minutes or more to travel during rush hour- In the ATS system, where there are no traffic lights and through traffic never has to stop while vehicles enter or exit the roadway, a single lane can carry 18,000 vehicles an hour. rj[)i I"= Mon Traffic lights cut traffic flow by 70%1 Traffic lights: A BOTTLENECK that cuts traffic flow "No advanced transportation system should be considered viable if it requires vehicles to stop at any time other than for departures, arrivals or stops for the travelers' convenience"" —KATS Inventor Waldemar Kissel V --r -- - `.averswdullrA &A L&11LAL6&1%Y*_A I 1ULU11JUL... Double stoplight trap and rush hour expressway frustration 11UP.// WWW.UULUMaLCUtrarispon.com/ntm]vU2c.html Chapter 2C Now consider the impact of double stoplights the dreaded 'stoplight trap' In this common situation, two stoplights are placed a few hundred feet apart. or at consecutive city blocks. When the first light turns green, the second light turns red shortly thereafter. When the first light is red the second light is green. The result is traffic stopped on red at the first light is stopped again on red at the second light. During heavy traffic the second light receives twice as many vehicles as can get through the Intersection. Traffic then backs up at the first light. Each time the lights cycle through green and red the traffic jam gets longer. This stoplight configuration is COMMON and is a frequent cause of GRIDLOCK. Rush hour expressway frustration Now consider the impact of just one slow driver at rush hour on an expressway with two southbound lanes. Traffic behind the slow driver starts backing up, and as drivers react, each has less time to respond. Each subsequent vehicle must slow down more than the car it follows. Drivers in the backed -up lane start moving to the other lane to squeeze past the slow driver, causing a bottleneck that reduces the carrying capacity of both lanes. Eventually, traffic comes to a complete stop. This acts like a WAVE that moves further back in the line of traffic. Even after the slow vehicle exits the highway, this RIPPLE continues. After a few minutes the vehicles start moving again and eventually they are going full speed again. Drivers may have expected to see a wreck ahead, and are surprised to find no visible cause for this delay. Often the delay is caused by gawking — people slowing down to observe a driver pulled over on the side of the road by police. This effect is seen repeatedly every day on 1-4 traveling east from Orlando to Tampa and all drivers experience it in heavy traffic. It's why some cynical commuters have dubbed Interstate Highway 4 in Orlando the 1-4 parking lot-" Conclusion! The busier a conventional expressway or road gets during rush hour, the fewer vehicles it is capable of carrying. dreaded' double stoplights --see animation 9h rawWOW.tt One slow car causes a traffic jam enlame image(Isee animation L WOO# t-owe U W-wo opt W-Ar W.0 1-%W tff, ho,* ta =2 < Back to Chapter 2B I next: Chapter 3 Tragedy and waste in our current road system> I of I 1 /7 /')AAQ 11 -n4 nri 4 bear Kalispell Planning Board and Kalispell City Council, Please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier Mail/Town Cen- and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. t Keep Kalispell to Whitefish 5nfe &Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access V�n his corridor. Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concur- rent with needed transportationinfrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road 20ems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Transportation Plan. I support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Additionally: Sincerely, signature Name Printed �0 Address City/State/ ZIP Dear Kalispell Planning Board and Kalispell, -City Council, Please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier Mall/Town Cen- t and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. Keep Kalispell to Whitefish Safe & Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for 1 limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development troves forward concur- rent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Transportation Plan. support the need for .the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Additionally: Siric"ere y, ., NI lzj 4�" Signature Name Printed Address City/State/ ZIP Dear Kalispell Planning Board and Kalispell City Council, Please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier Mall/Town Cen- ter and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. X Keep Kalispell to Whitefish Safe &Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. )( Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concur- rent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Transportation Plan. )tI support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Additionally: Since rely, r S � Signature Name Printed Address City/State/ ZIP �1 Dear. Kalispell Plannin�nrd�nnd - `�y Council, Please make my comments part of t e u hearing record for both the Glacier Mall/Town Cen- ternd the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. !a' Keep Kalispell to Whitefish Safe & Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our volley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concur- rent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road riins in the Kalispell area covered by the new Transportation Plan. support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Additionally: Sincerely, t� Signature fi)a'-k Name Printed F 0 �3 0 �' C� Address l/ (A__/l, I (k_Ft2A City/State/ ZIP Page I of 1 Theresa white From: john de Udeneevegyahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:27 PM To: citycouncilgkalispell.com Subject: Keeping the flow of hgh 93 Citizens for a Better Flathead got it right when they commented that we only have one chance to keep the flow of the highway and it is now. And unfortunately it concerns the mall again. This land use decision that has allowed them to build here has sure caused a lot of problems for the citizens of the Flathead. Lets not let it also stop the flow of traffic on hwy 93 too! Take your time and do the right things for our hwy. Don't relenquish to all the pressure from the mall developers... This is our valley and town and we have to live with the consequences. So please don't allow anymore traffic lights on 93. That's what the master plan says. thank you for your time and work. John de Neeve Looking for last minute shopping deals` Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Theresa White From: heidi fehihaber [heidijanefhotmail,coml Sent; Saturday, January 05, 2008 2:20 PM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Subject: Stoplights on 93?!! Dear Kalispell City Council Members, Please continue to oppose the installation of ANY more stoplights on highway 93 in conjunction with the development of the Glacier Town Center/Mall! ! (or Riverdale, for that matter,) I commute regularly on HIGHWAY 93 to FVCC, and my husband also does for work. Now that the HIGHWAY is being vastly improved in terms of flow and SAFETY, let's not backpeddle with a short-sighted show of weak leadership and clutter the HIGHWAY with miscellaneous traffic lights! The Town Center - what an oxymoron ! ! - is not a public facility, and citizens should not be forced to submit to its overreaching influence on our main arterial HIGHWAY. I also believe that more stoplights will create a significant safety hazard for motorists traveling at HIGHWAY speed. I suppose we could turn the entire stretch of HIGHWAY 93 into a 45 mph zone... please don't! Drawing from experience at 93 and Reserve, any accidents will be deadly and essentially close the entire thoroughfare to traffic in both directions. I call that unnecessary risk and self-defeating. Please remember that the operative word here is "HIGHWAY 93", not "Wolford Lane," and that citizens, businesses and EMS/fire/police all rely on a functioning connector between our communities and resources. I trust you will stand your ground on this issue. Res pectf u l I y, Heidi Marcum Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vistas + Windows Live"'. Start now! 1/7/Z008 Page 1. of l Theresa White From: Jere Jobe [JereAJobehotmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:43 AM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Subject: Highway 93 Traffic Plan Dear City Council Members, My wife and I are not residents of the city of Kalispell. However, we are residents of the Flathead Valley and your actions have a major bearing on our lives. Please consider the REAL ramifications of the traffic plans that are being proposed by all of the developers of property along Highway 93 North of town. It is not to late to hire knowledgeable and UNBIASED, experts to look at the whole situation before jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. A bit of wise planning now can prevent a disaster in the future. If this mall is delayed by a few months or even a few years, it will not create a true hardship on anyone. IT IS BETTER TO DO THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME THAN TO SPEND GENERATIONS TRYING TO FIX SIMPLE MISTAKES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! The city leaders of Ames, Iowa have the right idea. Let's hope that Kalispell's leadership has as much wisdom, Melinda & Jere Jobe Somers, Montana 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Theresa White From: Hitchcock, Julie Uhitch@montana.edu] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:44 AM To: citycouncil@kalispell,com Subject: Comments on KTP Dear Council: As a landholder in Flathead County, please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier Mall/Town Center and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. • Please review the Ames Iowa mall development carefully, including the conditions set for the developer, and find out why the deadlines for meeting those conditions has passed. • Keep Kalispell to Whitefish stoplight free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of the valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. • Put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concurrent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Kalispell Transportation Plan • I support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review, • I support and call for an independent review of the mall traffic study and bringing in an expert to review possible solutions (can the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University do this?) for the keeping Hwy 93 stoplight free now, before you reach a decision on the mall. ) LtL�e H't.tck cnC'Vz' Bozeman, MT 1 /7/2008 Page l of 1 Theresa White From: Stan Makman [makman@centurytel.net Sent; Monday, January 07, 2008 9:20 AM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier Mall/Town Center and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. • Please support and call for an independent review of the mall traffic study and bring in an expert to review possible solutions for the keeping Hwy 93 stoplight free now, before you reach a decision on the mall. Keep Kalispell to Whitefish Safe and Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. • Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concurrent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Kalispell Transportation Plan • I support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Thank you, Elizabeth Makman 233 Terrace Rd Kalispell, MT 59901 756-9452 1/9/2008 Theresa White From: Marshall Noice f mnoicegcenturytel.net] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9.26 AM To: citycouncilkalispell.com Subject: glacier mall comments Dear Mayor Kennedy and Councilmen, I wish to comment on the proposed Glacier Mall. I feel Bucky's traffic study is not adequate to be considered in it's current form and believe our city should have it reviewed by an independent expert. I believe Kalispell to Whitefish should remain without stoplights. Other mall use interchanges and we have several planned for the bypass. Is this not a better solution? I feel Kalispell must have impact fees in place prior to this project gaining approval. Additionally I feel the city council should, before final approval of the project, recieve full committment from major anchors for the mall. require Bucky to obtain full title to the property, and obtain full financing for the project. The last thing se need is to overbuild more retail and office space. If this is to go forward let's get some assurances that it will go forward successfully. respectfully yours, Marshall Noice Page 1 of 1 Theresa White From: Marilyn LaSorte mlasorte cx sd0.k12.mt.usj Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:27 AM To. citycouncilkalispell.com Subject: Independent traffic study review for Glacier Mall Council Members: At a recent city council workshop on the proposed Glacier Mall, many city council members expressed concerns with the mall's proposed transportation plan including: • The need for an independent review of the developer's traffic impact study, • concern with the potential impact of stoplights on US Hwy 93 and on their impacts on existing traffic problems in the area and on the Kalispell Bypass, • Desires to see the new Kalispell Transportation plan and impact fees in place prior to annexation of the Glacier Mall, • concerns with the developer's traffic consultant's assertion that a junior interchange or overpass would not work at the mail location despite the fact that the Kalispell Bypass calls for seven overpasses. The Montana Department of Transportation is also installing an overpass at church and US Hwy 93, and they are being successfully used in Washington State to serve retail centers there. Please require an independent review of the traffic study and bring in an expert to review possible solutions for keeping Hwy 93 stoplight free row before you reach a decision on the mail. Marilyn LaSorte 1/7/2008 Therese White From: john rodwick [braddahjohnnyl yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:10 AM To: citycouncilkalispell.com Subject: Glacier Mall/ Transportation Plan Dear City Council Members, My wife and I are long-time valley residents and not opposed to reasonable growth. However, the transportation and road congestion piece of the mall development north of town concerns us greatly. Please adopt the proposals made by the Citizens group that I have pasted below. There is absolutely no reason to rush into this and when I read in the paper that we owe it to Mr. Wolford to get this done I can't believe that anyone would say that and jeopardize the quality of what we have here in the valley so that he does not get angry, frustrated or whatever. Thank you, John Rodwick Holly Hand Whitefish Stage Rd Kalispell Please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier MalllTown Center and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. * Please support and call for an independent review of the mall traffic study and bring in an expert to review possible solutions for the keeping Hwy 33 stoplight free now, before you reach a decision on the mall. * Keep Kalispell to Whitefish Safe and Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 03. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. * Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concurrent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Kalispell Transportation Plan * I support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Theresa White From: Johanna Bangeman [montanalakevacationPyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 11:45 AM To: citycouncilkalispell.com Subject: Public comment for tonight's meeting Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I live at 45 E. Wyoming Street in Kalispell and cannot attend tonight's meeting because of a previous commitment, but I'd like to comment about the access to Glacier Mall and other transportation issues. As a resident in the "east/north" area of Kalispell near Lawrence Park, I find it hard to get across Idaho to get to downtown Kalispell or to get up to the hospital and medical offices or anywhere north of town walking or on a bike. True I can go to 3rd Ave E. or Main and Idaho to catch stoplights, but they don't last long enough at Main and Idaho to get across and people in cars don't pay attention to pedestrians. Since 1 st Ave E. N. is a straight shot to 1 st Ave. E., 1 like to walk on it to get to the library or anywhere else downtown and it is dangerous crossing by the old Sportsman Ski Haus and out of the way to go up to 3rd Ave. E. by Smiths. I think we need more careful planning to make our community walkable and safe. Sunset Blvd. is dangerous to walk or bike along and there is no path designated for either, yet it is used a lot by people going to the Salvation Army or wanting to access other businesses and services north of town. As a driver, I am overwhelmed by all the lights just to get to reserve. I have had friends get in accidents there because the lights are bright, blinding, and drivers hurry through after the light has changed. So I urge you to take more time and please support an independent review of the mall traffic study and bring in an expert to review possible solutions for the keeping Hwy 93 stoplight free now, before you reach a decision on the mall. I have 4 videotapes available for your viewing by Dan Burden called Walkable Communities, Designing for Pedestrians. Also I believe we should keep Kalispell to Whitefish safe and stoplight Free. Please uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. I want you to preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. You should require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concurrent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. Not everyone wants to drive, so make plans for trails to connect any new development that walkers and bikers can use and make the developers pay for it. i support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Thank you for your consideration, Johanna Bangeman Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http:Hmobile.yahoo.coml;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Page I of 2 Theresa White From: Kevin Coyle Cchester pearl@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 12:15 PM To: citycouncilkalispell.com Subject: Glacier Town Center/Mall Dear City Council Members, I would like to bring to your attention the following information for you consideration regarding the Glacier Town Center/Mall. Please support and call for an independent review of the mail traffic study and bring in an expert to review possible solutions for the keeping Hwy 93 stoplight free now, before you reach a decision on the mall. • Please provide the leadership to keep aisell to Whitefish Safe and Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies that call for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley by requiring interchanges and similar solutions to handle growing land use demands for access along this corridor. I support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. • I do not support the Montana Department of Transportation's current position that more stoplights can be allowed between Kalispell and whitefish. This position is not in accordance with city planning documents or state policy. A better solution is needed! A similar project in Idaho where reasonable demands were placed on the developer are here for your review: Ames Iowa holds Bucky Wolford to a higher standard for proposed mall there The Ames mall was proposed almost seven years ago at the same time as the Glacier Mall here, and has been equally controversial there. For an almost identical mall proposal in Ames, Iowa, developer Bucky Watford is being required to meet a series of conditions 'before the pity of Ames will further process his development application. They set these conditions two years ago with a December 2007 deadline for compliance, all of which must be met. Mr. Wolford just recently failed to meet all of these conditions and is asking for more time to do so. The conditions included: • To secure full commitments from major anchors and other retailers for 330,000 square feet of retail space, a percentage of which must be new to Ames. • To obtain full title to all property included in the development proposal. • To obtain full financing for the project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kevin Coyle 120 Marvin's way Kalispell MT 59901 1/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 "Theresa White From: CSF [citizensflatheadcitizens.org] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:41 PM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Subject: Cheryl Lee comments on Road Sense I am writing from work but am making these comments as a private citizen. (1) 1 drive Whitefish Stage every day --it is a skinny little road with no shoulders in case of emergencies! It will not bear the extra traffic of a huge commercial development and all the housing that is planned for north of Kalispell. As far as I know, there is no immediate plans and NO MONEY to widen Whitefish Stage --even to a decent two lane road. We cannot even afford to keep the roads striped here so we can see where we are going, let alone widen roads for the immense developments being approved every day. MAKE SURE that plans are in place for traffic mitigation before saying YES to any more large-scale development. Have you driven down Whitefish Stage before 8 am lately --lots of traffic even now --and Reserve ---WOW!! Kalispell now has its own little rush hour --is this what we want? I just lived on the West Coast for ten years --it can be ugly. (2) The existing Rose crossing will also end up being a feeder road for the Mall -it is a narrow road with a steep hill which all those people buying into the huge new subdivision planned at the bottom of the hill will be using as a main thoroughfare anyway. Are there any immediate plans to widen Rose Crossing? It may be on the boards, but SHOW ME THE MONEY! (3) About a week or so ago when the roads were VERY slippery (which they often are in the winter here) I saw a man driving a truck try to stop at the stoplight on Rose crossing and HWY 2. He started to brake and just kept sliding --barely missing a car crossing Hwy 2 on Rose crossing. A seconds difference, the car would have been broadsided by the out -of -control truck. Luckily, he just missed him and kept sliding until he got the truck under control. Traffic lights on high-speed roads --like Hwy 2 and Hwy 93 are dangerous because people are really speeding trying to make the green light, and if there is an accident, the damage can be extensive --or tragic. An overpass is much safer. Cheryl Lee Private Citizen and resident of 946 Trumble Creek Road (two blocks north off Rose Crossing) 11712008 Theresa White From: Shannon Harper [shanyblaster@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:51 PM To: citycouncil@kalispell.com Subject: comments Please make my comments part of the public hearing record for both the Glacier Mall/Town Center and the new Kalispell Transportation Plan. Please support and call for an independent review of the mall traffic study and bring in an expert to review possible s011-Itions for the beeping Hwy 93 stoplight free now, before you reach a decision on the mall. Keep Kalispell to Whitefish Safe and Stoplight Free. Uphold current city and state policies for limited access on US Hwy 93. Preserve its safe and efficient operation and the special character of our valley. Require interchanges and similar solutions for growing land use demands and access in this corridor. Also, please put into place standards to ensure that new development moves forward concurrent with needed transportation infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient highway and road systems in the Kalispell area covered by the new Kalispell Transportation Plan l support the need for the city and the state to plan for and identify transportation solutions and options BEFORE development applications are considered for subdivision review. Watch "cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference. hftp://im.Iive.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text—watchcause 1/7/2008 Kalispell City Council — cityco u nci l @ kal ispe I l . corn This is input to be considered for the glacier town center project Kalispell public hearing 11712003. It seems that too often, projects in the city and county are approved only on the impacts of the immediate project, not the impacts on the surrounding area, and how this new project will impact foot and vehicle traffic patterns. I feel that all infrastructure needs to be considered when new development occurs - sewer, water, roads, pedestrian/bicycle access, etc. n the past few years hwy 93 was widened to 5 lanes north to west reserve drive with a separated from hwy sidewalk/bicycle lane on the east side. The west side separated from hwy sidewalk/bicycle lane was to be installed as development in section 30 occurred. hwy 93 has been widened from west reserve drive north 10 miles to whitefish, except for a few mile gap by majestic valley arena, without a separated from hwy sidewalk/bicycle lane. I suspect this was because nobody expected the city of Kalispell or large commercial development to occur north of west reserve drive a few years ago. but now with residential and commercial acres annexed to the city several miles north of west reserve drive at church drive, and glacier town center all but approved 1/2 mile north of west reserve drive along hwy 93, the infrastructure for these projects are not in place. If the city is requiring these developments to extend sewer and water to the new development, and wants to keep efficient, quick moving traffic between Kalispell and whitefish along hwy 93, 1 think we need to think in the short and long term for vehicle and foot and bicycle traffic movement- for the city and the county. I think as glacier town center is considered for approval, the developer should be required to put in a separated from hwy sidewalk/bicycle 3-10 foot wide lane from hwy 93 and west reserve drive intersection at least as far north as their development, and also along west reserve drive from hwy 93 east to whitefish stage road. They are creating an attractive nuisance and they should provide the infrastructure for the public to safely access their development. as the Montana department of transportation considers completing the last portion of hwy 93 in front of majestic valley arena from 2 to 5 lanes, I think that project should also include putting in a separated from hwy sidewalk/bicycle 5-10 foot wide lane on both sides of the highway 93 from west reserve drive north 10 miles to whitefish. The project should also assess the volume of traffic and speeds of traffic at the hwy 93 and west reserve drive intersection, and how foot and bicycle users can safely get across both hwy 93 and west reserve drive at this intersection. Do the city and county and Kalispell school district want to encourage people on foot and bicycles to walk from residences to get to home depot, target, costco, and loaves shopping and Page 1 of 2 the new glacier center mail' do we want to encourage high school students to safely walk and ride bikes in dark snowy winter weather from whitefish stage road along west reserve drive and then across hwy 93 to get to the new glacier high school? (The new high school was built without adequate sidewalk infrastructure too) I think if we really want to encourage people to safely walk or ride bikes at the hwy 93 and west reserve drive intersection, we need at least a foot/bike overpass over each of these roads. We also need an overall assessment of the Kalispell and county needs for foot and bike access for the city and the adjacent 3 to 4 miles of surrounding county lands, so when county land is being considered to be annexed into the city, ALL infrastructure, including foot and bicycle access is included as a cost of the project that the developer, city, county, or state pays up front, and not to delay it to some future date. If the project can't afford to install ALL of the infrastructure, maybe it should not just be built until the project can afford to pay for it. I think the Kalispell City Council, the Flathead County Commissioners, the Montana Department of Transportation, and the Technical Advisory Committee that advises them on traffic should all play a part in making any projects as accessible and safe for motorized and non -motorized use in the short and long term. Dale Luhman 169 Trailridge Road Kalispell, MT 59901 dtck@digisys.net Cc: Tom Jentz, tjentz@kalispell.com Page 2 of 2