Staff Report/Kalispell North Town Center Preliminary PlatPLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
REPORT TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
M01ff"A
Doug Russell, City Manager )k
Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
Planning Department
201 1" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
KPP-16-03 — Kalispell North Town Center Preliminary Plat Request
February 6, 2017
BACKGROUND: A request from Stillwater Corporation, for Kalispell North Town Center — Phase
1, a major subdivision of 81.4 acres of land into 12 lots. The lots will range from 1.3 acres to 13.9
acres in size. The subdivision is located within the Glacier Town Center Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and is currently undeveloped grasslands. The Glacier Town Center PUD is 485.5 acres and
includes four zoning designations of R-3 (single-family residential), R-4 (two-family residential), B-1
(neighborhood business), and B-2 (general business). The subdivision request is the first phase of
nine phases of development and encompasses primarily the commercial component of the PUD at its
northwest boundary. The property is generally bounded by U.S. Hwy 93 North, Glacier Memorial
Gardens Cemetery and the Stillwater River on the west; Reserve Drive and Applied Materials along
its southern boundary; Whitefish Stage Road on its eastern boundary; and the MDOT maintenance
yard, Army Reserve Center and a combination of privately -owned, incorporated and unincorporated
land along its northern boundary. The tract of land to be subdivided is located in the SW4 of Section
19 and the NW4 of Section 30, Township 29N, Range 21W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana,
more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A".
The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing January 10, 2017, to consider the
application request. Staff presented staff report KPP-16-03 providing details of the proposal and
evaluation. Staff reported that the proposed preliminary plat was consistent with the subdivision
regulations, the zoning, and the growth policy. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the
staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat be
approved, subject to 24 conditions.
During the public comment portion of the hearing, a representative of the applicant spoke in favor of
the request. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed and a motion was
presented to adopt staff report KPP-16-03 as findings of fact, and recommend to the Kalispell City
Council that the preliminary plat be approved, subject to 24 conditions. Board discussion concluded
that the preliminary plat was appropriate, and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve Resolution
5803, a resolution conditionally approving the preliminary plat of Kalispell North Town Center,
Phase 1, located in the Southwest quarter of section 19 and the Northwest quarter of section 30,
township 29 North, range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, subject to the 24 conditions
therein.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Approval of the request will allow the applicant to proceed with development
of the site, which in turn will have positive fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5803
January 10, 2017, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes
Staff Report
Application Materials & Maps
Staff report compiled: January 31, 2017
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
CTA, 411 East Main, Bozeman, MT 59715
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER - PHASE 1
REQUEST FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
STAFF REPORT #KPP-16-03
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 29, 2016
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a
preliminary plat application to create 12 lots within the Kalispell North Town Center. A
public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for January 10, 2017,
beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will
forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A request from Stillwater Corporation, for Kalispell North Town Center - Phase 1, a
major subdivision of 81.4 acres of land into 12 lots. The subdivision is located within
Kalispell North Town Center (previously known as The Glacier Town Center PUD) and is
currently undeveloped grasslands. The Kalispell North Town Center is 485.5 acres and
includes four zoning designations of R-3 (single-family residential), R-4 (two-family
residential), B-1 (neighborhood business), and B-2 (general business). The subdivision
request is the first phase of nine phases of development and encompasses primarily the
commercial component of the PUD at its northwest boundary. The property previously
received preliminary plat approval for 37 lots on approximately 192 acres in 2008, but
that preliminary plat has since expired. The major subdivision application for Kalispell
North Town Center - Phase 1 totals 81.4 acres of the 485.5 acre property, and contains
11 commercial lots and 1 multi -family residential lot for a total of 12 lots. The lots range
in size from 1.3 acres to 13.9 acres in size and comprise approximately 56.9 acres with
24.5 acres in city right-of-way and open space. The city right-of-ways will be constructed
to city standards. The development includes the extension of Rose Crossing from U.S. 93
to Whitefish Stage Road. Phase 1 also includes a 100' wide landscaped buffer along U.S.
93 North and 2.1 acre landscaped buffer located between the National Guard Armory
and Lot 1 of Block 1.
A. Petitioner and Owners: Stillwater Corporation
P.O. Box 7338
Kalispell, MT 59904
Technical Assistance: CTA
411 East Main
Bozeman, MT 59715
B. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property is generally bounded
by U.S. Hwy 93 North, Glacier Memorial Gardens Cemetery and the Stillwater
River on the west; Reserve Drive and Applied Materials along its southern
boundary; Whitefish Stage Road on its eastern boundary; and the MDOT
maintenance yard, Army Reserve Center and a combination of privately -owned,
incorporated and unincorporated land along its northern boundary. The tract of
land to be subdivided is located in the SW4 of Section 19 and the NW4 of Section
30, Township 29N, Range 21W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
NORTH Kalispell North Town Center, PH1
tq
9r
rit
P�
%
_. RV.Wi6 �L
1 ✓ �_
N
Kalispell Planning
DaAe: San 3rs5, 2417 Q 750
Fite Path:IL^cd F 74Sarodid 4 it3 2a i 7
C. Size:
Total area: 81.4 acres
Lots: 56.9 acres
Roads/Streets: 19.9 acres
Open Space: 4.6 acres
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is undeveloped farm lands.
The area to be subdivided has a PUD overlay that contains the zoning
designations B-2/PUD and R-3/PUD.
►:
E. Adjacent Land Uses:
North: Vacant land, MDT Facility and National Guard Armory
East: Vacant Land
South: Vacant land
West: U.S. 93 and vacant land
F. Adjacent Zoning:
North: City P-1, R-2 / PUD and County SAG-10
East: City B-2/PUD and R-3/PUD
South: City B-2 / PUD
West: County SAG-10
G. General Land Use Character: The area can be largely described as rural but in
transition. The subject property was annexed into the city prior to the recession
with the plan of developing the property into a mixed development consisting of
commercial development, multi -family, townhouses, open space and single-family
residential. The development will be of urban scale and be an extension of the
already developed city.
F. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Gas:
NorthWestern Energy
Telephone:
Centurylink
Schools:
School District No. 5
Fire:
City of Kalispell
Police:
City of Kalispell
REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KALISPELL
NORTH TOWN CENTER - PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION
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 property
does not have steep slopes or woody fuels. Hydrants will be required to be placed
in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and approved by
the Fire Chief. Fire station 62 is located approximately 1.6 miles away providing
good response time.
Flooding: Flood Insurance Rate Map, panel number 30029C 1415J shows the
entire subdivision to be outside of the 100-year floodplain.
Access: Access to the subdivision will be provided by U.S. 93 North, a four lane
highway. Two access roads (Rose Crossing and Lincoln Street) provide access into
3
the subdivision off of U.S. 93 North. Rose Crossing will be constructed through
the property to the east connecting with Whitefish Stage Road. Rose Crossing will
include a fully lighted intersection and be constructed to an arterial standard
within the subdivision. As Rose Crossing extends further east it will be developed
to a paved 2 lane rural standard until such time those areas are platted, at which
time it would be upgraded to an arterial standard in those areas. Lincoln Street
will be constructed as a collector street and its intersection with U.S. 93 North
will have a 3/4 movement. Two internal streets (Cascade Loop and Flathead Blvd.)
will be constructed to local street standards providing direct access to the lots
within the phase. It should be noted that the developer still needs to obtain 40' of
right-of-way from the northern portion of the property located at 2080 Whitefish
Stage Road. Obtaining this right-of-way allows for the intersection of Rose
Crossing with Whitefish Stage to line up with Rose Crossing as it continues east.
The Traffic Impact Study has indicated that the completion of Rose Crossing is not
necessary for the initial developments of Phase 1, as the internal road system
described here provides adequate access. As the development progresses the
developer will need to obtain the right-of-way for the completion of Rose Crossing
in order to address traffic mitigation as outlined in the Traffic Impact Study. The
landscaped buffer located along U.S. 93 and landscaped buffer separating the
multi -family lot from the armory will have a bike path located within them for
pedestrian connectivity.
B. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Map 7.8 located within Appendix A of
the Growth Policy does not show this area active wildlife habitat. Additionally, this
phase of the development is not located adjacent the Stillwater River Riparian
Corridor. Therefore, one can reasonably assume there will not be an effect on the
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
C. Effects on the Natural Environment:
Topography, Geology and Soils: There is one small conical hill located within the
proposed subdivision which has potentially unstable or excessive slopes. This hill
will be flattened for the efficient and effective development of the site, including
the roadways. There are no areas of shallow bedrock within the proposed
development. There are no areas with rock falls, slides or slumps, or rock
outcroppings. Best Management Practices, such as appropriate grading and
vegetation establishment will preclude erosion problems and standard good
operating procedures during construction will inhibit any nuisance dust
problems.
Based off of the field study completed by CMG Engineering the site is suitable for
commercial development. The study did have concern with the presence of loose
sand and silts encountered at anticipated foundation bearing elevations of the
multi -family lot area. Depending on the foundation loads, some sort of soil
treatment, such as over excavation and replacement with structural fill is
anticipated. The proposed project site is within Seismic Hazard Zone 3. All
buildings will be designed to the appropriate seismic engineering standard for the
area and reviewed by the building department.
Surface and Groundwater: The only natural surface water with this project is the
Stillwater River which is located approximately .5 miles from the proposed
subdivision to the south. There is a shallow perched aquifer table located on the
northeast section of the entire Kalispell North Town Center property. The
minimum depth to the water table was observed and was approximately 6'. The
0
limits of the perched aquifer do not protrude into the proposed subdivision where
development would be expected. Additionally, CMG Engineering conducted a
groundwater study. Based on the groundwater study, groundwater is not expected
to impact the suitability of the site for commercial development.
Drainage: The applicant is proposing to develop a subdivision level storm
drainage system with a detention pond located south of the subdivision. Curbs
and gutter will be installed along the streets throughout the subdivision and the
storm water will be conveyed to the detention pond. A final storm water design
will be reviewed and approved by Kalispell Public Works prior to construction and
final plat submittal.
A condition of approval requires that a homeowner's association be created for the
maintenance of the common area which would include the common area drainage
easements. As part of the storm easement areas the association will be required to
mow the area to reduce fire hazard and reduce spread of noxious weeds. Lastly,
the developer is required to submit for review 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.
Noise: U.S. 93 North is approximately 10 feet below the proposed elevation of the
subdivision. The Federal Highway Administration recognizes depressing the
highway below grade as a common noise mitigation measure. In addition, there is
an approximately 100' open space buffer located between the highway and the
nearest parcel. Lastly, the nearest proposed land use is commercial which is not
considered as noise sensitive as residential development and therefore is
considered as additional noise mitigation for the overall development.
Effects on Local Services:
Water: Phase 1 will be provided water service via an existing 14" water main
located within the right-of-way boundary of U.S. Hwy 93 North. The water system
will be designed in accordance with the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and
Construction and Montana Department of Environmental Quality Design
Standards for Water Works. There is adequate capacity within the city's water
system to accommodate this development. There is a latecomers fee associated
with this 14" main.
During summer months the city's water system is experiencing low pressure on
the north end of town due to irrigation. In order to alleviate this issue a new water
tank is needed on the north end of town to provide for the needed pressure in
order to adequately serve future development. Although not needed at this time,
as future phases within this development come forward this issue may need to be
addressed. Addressing the issue would include a location for a new water tank at
the same elevation as the water tank located near the hospital.
Sewer: Phase 1 will convey sewer via gravity flow into an existing 18" sanitary
sewer main located within the right-of-way boundary of U.S. Hwy 93 North. The
sanitary sewer system will be designed in accordance with City of Kalispell
Standards for Design and Construction and Montana Department of
5
Environmental Quality Design Standards for Public Sewage Systems. There is
adequate capacity within the city's sewer system to accommodate this
development. There is a latecomers fee associated with this 18" sewer main.
Roads: As discussed under the "Access" section of this document, U.S. 93 North
will provide access to the subdivision in coordination with an internal road
system. All of the roads will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. All private internal road
systems providing access to the lots will require Site Review Committee approval
for pedestrian and vehicular access prior to building permit issuance of any
structures on the lots.
Schools: This development is within the boundaries of Kalispell School District
No. 5. 11 of the 12 lots are proposed commercial. The commercial lots will not
have an impact on the school district. The developer is proposing that the multi-
family lot have 300 units. The multi -family lot has the potential to have a minor
impact on the district, as 150 students can be expected by the development on
average.
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.
Parks and Open Space: 11 of the lots are commercial and no parkland or open
space is required for those lots. The property will have a 2.5 acre 100' wide open
space buffer area located along U.S. Hwy 93 and a 2.1 acre open space buffer area
located between the multi -family residential lot and the National Guard Armory.
Additionally, the multi -family residential lot will be required to have a minimum 1
acre lot located within the multi -family development. Location of the park will be
determined at construction stage. Both of the open space buffers will have a bike path
located within them for recreation and pedestrian connectivity. Overall the PUD
requires that a minimum of 72.3 acres of open space and parkland shall be provided
within the development.
Police: This subdivision is in the jurisdiction of the City of 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 subdivision.
Additionally, the road network to the subdivision will provide adequate access for
fire protection. Fire station 62 is located approximately 1.6 miles away providing
good response time.
Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by the city. 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 2.7
miles from the site.
0
E. Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: The site has been
traditionally used for agricultural uses including crop production. The
environmental assessment for the project states that there are 2.65 acres of
"Farmland of State -Wide Importance". Current policies in the Kalispell Growth
Policy, Chapter 5, Land Use: Agriculture, state the following:
Policy 1
Encourage and create incentives to conserve agricultural lands.
Policy 2
Encourage urban growth into areas which are not environmentally sensitive or
productive agricultural lands.
The proposed subdivision contradicts both of the above policies as the requested
subdivision would not conserve any agricultural land on the site and does take
productive agricultural lands out of production. However, by providing a growth
area boundary, the city annexed the subject properties, which in turn lead to the
extension of water and sewer services. This enables more of the growth to come
into the City of Kalispell and connect to city water and sewer, and have police and
fire protection that the City offers its residents. By allowing higher density
development within the City's growth policy area, it could reasonably be expected
that more farmland could be conserved because the availability of residential and
commercial lots within the Kalispell Growth Policy boundary, limiting sprawl
development further out into the county.
E. Relation to the Kalispell Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future
Land Use Map designates this area as Urban Mixed Use, which anticipates a mix
of commercial, single-family and multi -family residential development. The
subdivision is proposing commercial 11 commercial lots and 1 multi -family
residential lot; therefore the proposed uses are in compliance with the Kalispell
Growth Policy.
F. Compliance with Zoning: In 2008 the city council approved the Glacier Town
Center PUD which provided a master plan for a 485.5 acre site. The subject
subdivision is a 81.4 acre portion of the master plan. The area to be subdivided
contains the zoning designations B-2 / PUD and R-3 / PUD, for which the proposed
uses and subdivision comply. In addition, as the properties develop additional
standards will be applied in regards to open space, landscaping, architecture,
signage, etc. as outlined in Ordinance No. 1630. The Site Review Committee will
evaluate compliance with those standards at time of overall site layout for the
subdivision and building permit issuance.
H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This subdivision
complies with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and no variances have been
requested.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
staff report KPP-16-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the preliminary plat Kalispell North Town Center - Phase 1 be approved, subject to
7
the conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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. All applicable conditions within Ordinance 1630 (Glacier Town Center PUD) shall
apply.
3. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the
date of approval.
4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review
and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets
the requirements of the current city standards for design and construction. Prior
to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the public works department
stating that the drainage plan for the subdivision has been installed as designed
and approved, or a proper bond is in place for said improvements.
5. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to
construction an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a
copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental
Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with
Construction Activities.
6. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable
specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and
the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with
approval of both required prior to construction.
7. The developer shall submit the street designs to the Kalispell Public Works
Department for review and approval prior to construction.
8. Existing onsite infrastructure shall be improved to meet the minimum City of
Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction.
9. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating
that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or a proper
bond has been accepted for unfinished work.
10. 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.
11. A 10' utility easement needs to be provided for along the arterial streets.
12. 40' of additional right-of-way is required along the northern half of Tract 1 of COS
15221 for the southern portion of Rose Crossing as it approaches the intersection
of Whitefish Stage Road.
13. 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
14. 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.
15. A property owner's association (POA) shall be formed and established for the
common areas prior to final plat. The POA should include provisions for the
maintenance of all common areas including the storm water ponds, parks and
open space areas.
16. A park maintenance district shall be formed incorporating all lots, commercial
and residential within the subdivision. 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.
17. A letter shall be obtained from the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director
approving a landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials
within the landscape boulevards of the streets serving the subdivision. The
approved landscape plan shall be implemented or a cash in lieu payment for
installation of the street trees and groundcover be provided to the Kalispell Parks
and Recreation Department.
18. The bike path located along U.S. 93 shall be extended across the Rose Crossing at
the US 93-Rose Crossing intersection.
19. The Bike path along Rose Crossing shall not have a mid -block crossing.
0
20. All utilities shall be installed underground.
21. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix
immediately after development.
22. The following requirements shall be met per the Kalispell Fire Department and so
certified in writing by the Fire Department:
a) Water mains designed to provide minimum fire flows shall be installed per
City specifications at approved locations. Minimum fire flows shall be in
accordance with International Fire Code.
b) Fire hydrants shall be provided per City specifications at locations
approved by this department, prior to combustible construction.
c) Fire Department access shall be provided in accordance with International
Fire Code.
d) It shall be noted on the face of the plat that hazardous weed abatement
shall be provided in accordance with City of Kalispell Ordinance 10-8.
e) Street naming shall be approved by the fire department.
23. Flathead Drive should be renamed in coordination with the Public Works
Department and Fire Department as it conflicts with an existing named road.
24. At time of final plat of each phase the proportionate share of the water rights shall
be transferred to the city.
10
F all m fmo
o�$ B$,�
o� B�
-$t o ¢8
gyym 5 R a
IKE
5 8
g 8
y
6
�
is ,Z
cs
� .o
b
�I
ao�
F �m g airF g=
ills s
`y4 Ca4
$ Yes all
amm
KALISPELL, MONTANA
! ? " „^ 'x v',- 'I KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER- PHASE t
PRELIMINARY PLAT
KALISPELL, MONTANA
! ? " „^ 'x v',- 'I KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER- PHASE t
PRELIMINARY PLAT
a 9 m f
� ammsa•E ,soar �- ttmaaSrE tsm �^
1_ti.Hi(-HK AY A4,
-
94
i I
OPEN SPAC: i, acass m, H O
8 K C9
z
.� by
d�
ITJ m
q
M
8
rf'
i
-LISPELL, MONTANA
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER - PHASE t
a PRELIMINARY PLAT
N �
fl. I
I I
I II
I
I PHASE I
BLOCK 1 1'I IA:i I. N T'lih.'ME 9
lOit � I
OROSE CROSSING I ARTERIAW I, POsfl Ho.tiSMG(RRTERIALI
I l PHASE pi6
BLOCK 2
} I I u I'11A'I '
II Lora PIIASE2
.. rr-
PI.SL LI
{ I I
[I'AS I
BI OCK 3
I I I
I I
I Lorl I
r
_ 1
LOI 10
IPHnsEn.. P+rs1: , I
LOTH
PHASE 2
LOT I] i
I
I for la I
ILL,
PHA SE 4
r� LAND PHASING ROAD PHASING
F N•S( 'ry PHASE 1 RHA5E A
PHASE
C
v i ! PHASE 3 PHASE] PHASE C
PHASEn
PHASES
' EkIArIHO OA:I NL
4„na J1J y 1 OEA:E4ILIN PHASE
l� r( ` 4... PHASEI
PHASE S
PHASE A
-
• PHASEA
• �' I BTILLWATER RIVER'; y:
Lrt
SIGNALS
SIGNAL t:4•WAY STOP AND WARRANTS
WEST ESCRVC DRIVF.
PHASE 1: NEW LIGHT AND 2 LEFT TURN LANES
�fp ppmp�.pupl�/,I , RI
If—
LANDSIGNAL V 4 WAY STOP AT PHASE 2 AND WARRANTS FOR FUTURESIGNAL
11MAL]: NEW SIGNAL, PARTNERWRHADJACENTLAND DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD PHASING PLAN 0 300 600 1200
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER %mom? 1 40
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 Scale: 1" = 600' North
LEGEND
e ARTERIAL STREET. SEE 21RD1
i COLLECTOR STREET. SEE 3/RD1
am
LOCAL STREET. SEE 4/RD1.
RURAL STREET. SEE S/RD1.
TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC.
-PHASE I
BNDY.
P7
Q
N112 SE1/4 Sec. 18
(IN1uPERTY 1 �� BIXREVMO ROM1O IPROPfl1tt
REl
GLa98GU1iEM1 —
I
Eva.O.W.
z ARTERIAL STREET
R.o.w, Rat a.o.w.
IPROPERi1' 91CcNe FOeO ('�iC`LERtt
UNEI � �CtILEVPPD �R[I
RBBGUTfER
I � J
3 COLLECTOR STREET
0.0.w.
IP OiERTv .- 91GEWMH qp iPHOPE
aEl / - 90ULEV� ER LINE)
a ecv rs�LOCALSTREET
IPRR"NEI
,
r_ r0.5Pfwti
COURSE ee I I
up�E CRU9REO CWLSE
ER NIOThI IO BGR FuiURE PAiERW.
PHASE 1 SURFACE PLAN 60 RURAL STREET
T
T
KALISPELL, MONTANA m
PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL Z �m
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER m Na
:a �( ",
a
vbym KALISPELL, MONTANA
p PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL z ae
m
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER 14
OPEN SPACE:
I�
J
�� N ft fw�Cr,�rrl
I
I
Z—Z — — —
v� ., I lu rl-IrvE nulvl.
LAND USE LEGEND
COMM1IERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PAMOPEN SPACE
SCHOOL
LAND USE PLAN 300 600�0
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 Scale: 1" = 600' North
Planning Department,
EIVED
R
201 1st Avenue East EC
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940 DEC ri 7 2016
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/pl
MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
FEE SCHEDULE: FEE ATTACHED $2500
Major Subdivision. (6 or more lots)
$1,000 + $125/lot
Major Subdivision. Resubmittal
$1,000
For each original lot unchanged add
$10/lot
For each lot redesigned /added add
$125/lot
Mobile Home Parks & Campgrounds (6 or more spaces)
$1,000 + $250/space
(5 or fewer spaces)
$400 + $125/space
Amended Preliminary Plat
Amendment to Conditions Only
$400 base fee
Re -configured Proposed Lots
Base fee + $40/lot
Add Additional Lots or Sub lots
Base fee + $125/lot
Subdivision Variance
$100 (per variance)
Commercial and Industrial Subdivision
$1,000 d- $125/lot
SUBDIVISION NAME: Kalispell North Town Center Phase I
Name: Stillwater Corporation Phone: 406.758.6400
Mailing Address: PO Box 7338 City: Kalispell —State: MT Zip 59904-0338
TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS (Surveyor/Designer/ Engineer, etc.):
Name &, Address CTA 411 East Main, Bozeman, MT 59715 406.556.7100
Name & Address
Name & Addres
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Property Address See attached for full legal description
Assessor's Tract No(s) _Lot No(s)
1/4 See Section 19 WO Township 29
Range 21
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION:
Number of Lots or Rental Spaces 12 Total Acreage in Subdivision 81.4
Total Acreage in Lots 56.9 —Minimum Size of Lots or Spaces 1.3 Total Acreage
in Streets or Roads 18.9 Maximum Size of Lots or Spaces 13.9 Total Acreage
in Parks, Open Spaces and/or Common Areas 5.6
PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTS/ SPACES:
Single Family Townhouse Mobile Home Park
Duplex Apartment Recreational Vehicle Park
Commercial 11 —Industrial Planned Unit Development
I —Condominium-Multi-Family_Other
APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT: -..General, Central Business,
Industrial Business; General Business 132
Roads: Gravel Paved x Curb x Gutter x Sidewalks x Alleys Other
Water System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood Public x Other
Sewer System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood Public x Other
Other Utilities: Cable TV x Telephone x Electric x Gas x Other
Solid Waste: Home Pick UpCentralStorage Contract Hauler x Owner Haul
Mail Delivery: Central x Individual School District: Kalispell
Fire Protection: Hydrants x Tanker RechargeFireDistrict: City of Kalispell
Drainage System: Stormwater treatment and conveyance system will be managed onsite
and maintained by the Common Area Management Plan.
PROPOSED EROSION/ SEDIMENTATION CONTROL: Contractor will complete a
City Stormwater Management Permit and will follow the City of KaliWells Stormwater
Management Plan's.best management -practices and checklist. Prior to any
disturbance of property the Contractor shall submit a copy of the State General
Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit Notice of Intent (NOI)..and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
VARIANCES: ARE ANY VARIANCES REQUESTED? No (yes/no) If yes,
please complete the information below:
SECTION OF REGULATIONS CREATING HARDSHIP: N
EXPLAIN THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE CREATED WITH STRICT
COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS N/A
2
REGULATIONS: N/A_
1. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties?
N/A
2. Will the variance cause a substantial increase in public costs?
N/A
3. Will the variance affect, in any manner, the provisions of any adopted zoning
regulations, Master Plan or Growth Policy?
N/A
4. Are there special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the site
(topography, shape, etc.) that create the hardship?
N/A
5. What other conditions are unique to this property that create the need for a
variance?
N/A
3
Summary of Proposed Development
Background and Introduction
Kalispell North Town Center "KNTC" (formally known as The Glacier Town Center) is a
485.5 acre property generally located north of West Reserve Drive, east of US Highway
93 and west of Whitefish Stage Road. The northern boundary is undeveloped land.
The property is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved by Ordinance No. 1630
on February 4th, 2008. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) contains multiple zoning
categories including: R-3 Urban Single Family Residential, R-4 Two Family Residential,
B-1 Neighborhood Buffer District; and B-3 Community Businesses. The PUD also
includes two planned unit development overlays: 1) Commercial PUD overlaying the
zoning district of B-3 and 2) A mixed residential/commercial PUD overlaying zoning
districts B-1; R-4; and R-3.
The proposed development application for Phase I totals 81.4 acres. There are 12 lots
comprising approximately 56.9 acres. The project features 1 high density residential lot
of approximately 300 units and 11 commercial lots varying in size from 1.3 acres to 13.9
acres. Phase I includes a 2+ acre greenway buffer along US Highway 93 and
approximately 3.5 acres of parkland, trails and sidewalks serving the high density
residential development, providing pedestrian access to US Highway 93 and efficient
pedestrian access throughout the development.
The parcels are expected to connect to City water and sewer services. Stormwater
treatment and detention will take place onsite. The Developer will be responsible for the
extension of all necessary infrastructure to connect to these existing systems and the
construction of stormwater facilities.
For Phase I, the Developers will implement a Common Area Management Plan that will
address the future maintenance and operation of the common areas. Kalispell North
Town Center is compliant with all City of Kalispell planning documents including the
City's growth policy, transportation plan, water plan, sewer plan, and stormwater plan.
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER I
Pre -Application Conference
A pre -application conference was held with the City of Kalispell's planning and
engineering departments, CTA, and the Developer on September 13, 2106. The pre -
application conference was to introduce the Kalispell North Town Center (KNTC) Phase
I Project, located on the same property as the Glacier Town Center Planned Unit
Development project, approved by the City of Kalispell on February 4, 2008. The
meeting included discussion around the intent of the original PUD and the proposed
development for KNTC Phase I.
Subsequent to the September 13th meeting with the City, there have been numerous
discussions over the past several months to ensure that development of KNTC Phase I
stays consistent with the intent of the original PUD.
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER I
APPLICATION CONTENTS:
The subdivider shall submit a complete application addressing items below to the Kalispell
Planning Department at least thirty five (35) days prior to the date of the Planning Board
meeting at which it will be heard.
1. Preliminary plat application.
2. 10 copies of the preliminary plat.
3. Electronic copy of plat.
4. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See Appendix A of
Subdivision Regulations for the city where the subdivision is proposed.)
5. One reduced copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed 11" x 17" in size.
6. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing
the location and boundaries of the property.
7. Application fee.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the
information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any
other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation
submitted in connection with this application be untrue, I understand that any approval
based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this
application signifies approval for the Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the property
for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process.
(Applicant) ' ' (Date)
11
Kalispell North Town Center
Exhibit "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the south half of Section 19, and the north half of Section 30,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M,,M., Flathead County, Montana, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana; thence along the north line of said Section
30, S89041'25"E 69.82 feet to a point on the east boundary of U.S. Highway 93 right-of-
way and the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence continuing along the north line of said
Section 30, S89"41'25"E 1237.84 feet to the west sixteenth corner common to said
Sections 19 and 30; thence along the sixteenth line, N00"33'31"W 1320.49 feet to the
southwest sixteenth corner of said Section 19; thence along the sixteenth line,
S89046'04"E 629.90 feet; thence S00'00'1 1 "W 1312.88 feet; thence S44'59'55"E 7.07
feet; thence EAST 275.88 feet to the beginning of a 1040.00 foot radius curve to the
right-, thence along said curve 223.72 feet through an angle of 12'19'30"; thence
S77040'30"E 144.74 feet to the beginning of a 1360.00 foot radius curve to the left-,
thence along said curve 621.28 feet through an angle of 26"1027", thence
N76"09'04"E, 150.75 feet, to the beginning of a 1040.00 foot radius curve to the right;
thence along said curve 251.33 feet through an angle of 13'50'46"; thence N89'59'50"E
1706.12 feet to a point on the east line of said Section 19; thence along said east line,
S00"37'31 "E 41.97 feet to the southeast corner of said Section 19; thence along the
south line of said Section 19, said south line also being the north line of Tract 1 of
Certificate of Survey No. 15221, on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder,
N89040'28"VV 688.05 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract 1; thence along the west
line of said Tract 1, S00'1 2'44"E 41.98 feet; thence S89'59'50"W 1018.94 feet to the
beginning of a 960.00 foot radius curve to the left-, thence along said curve 231.99 feet
through an angle of 13'50'46"; thence S76'09'04"W 150.75 feet to the beginning of a
1440.00 foot radius curve to the right-, thence along said Curve 657.83 feet through an
angle of 26"10'27", thence N77'40'30"W, 144.74 feet to the beginning of a 960.00 foot
radius curve to the left-, thence along said curve 206.51 feet through an angle of
12'19'30"; thence WEST 265.89 feet; S45'00'05" 7.07 feet-, thence S00'00'1 1"W
1235.11 feet-, thence WEST 1868.86 feet to a point on the east boundary of U.S.
Highway 93 right-of-way,- thence along said east boundary through the following five
courses- 1) N00"I I'l YE, 164.00 feet; 2) N14"132YE, 61.85 feet; 3) N00"I 1,01"E,
940.05 feet-, 4) North 13'56'35" West 61.89 feet-, 5) North 00'10'44" East 100.60 feet to
a point on the north line of said Section 30 and the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Tract
contains 81.091 acres.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
Prepared For:
Stillwater Corporation
PO Box 7338
Kalispell, MT 59904
Prepared By:
CTA Architects Engineers
411 East Main I Suite 101
Bozeman, MT 59715
#406.556.7100
www. ctaciro u n.com
CTA Project No. LHC_KNTC
December 2, 2016
Preliminary Engineering Report
.li north Town Center - Phase i I Proiect No. LHC KNTC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SANITARY SEWER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM............................................................... 2
3.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ... ................................ _....................................... ..,... 3
3.1 Existing Conditions WaterCAD model Analysis.............................................................................3
3.2 KNTC — Phase I WaterCAD model Analysis...................................................................................4
4.0 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM........................................................................................ 5
4.1 Hydrologic Methodology..................................................................................................
4.2 Pre -Development Conditions........................................................................................................6
4.3 Post -Development Conditions — KNTC Phase I.............................................................................7
4.4 HWY93 Intersections —Culvert Crossings ....... __ .......... ___ ........................... ............................ 9
4.5 Storm Water Quality.....................................................................................................................9
5.0 INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK.......................................................................................10
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 — Location Map
Figure 3.1 — KNTC WaterCAD Layout
Figure 32 — KNTC-PH I WaterCAD Junctions
TABLES
Table 4.1.1 — SCS Curve Numbers used in the TR-55 Calculations
Table 4.2.1 — 10-yr Pre -Development Peak Runoff
Table 4.2.2 — 100-yr Pre -Development Peak Runoff
Table 4.3.1 — 10-yr Post -Development Peak Runoff
Table 4.3.2 — 100-yr Post -Development Peak Runoff
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Preliminary Plat and Phasing Plan
Appendix B — Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Exhibits and Calculations
Appendix C — Water Distribution System Exhibits and Calculations
Appendix D — Storm Drainage System Exhibits and Calculation
Appendix E — Internal Road Network Exhibits
CTA Architects Engineers
Preliminary Engineering Repor
;il North Town Center -- Phase I Project No. LHC KNTC
_ e fr
Kalispell North Town Center (KNTC), formerly known as Glacier Town Center, is a 485 acre
previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). Current plans show the PUD being
established in approximately eight phases. The purpose of this report is to address the
proposed water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage system concepts for the Phase I
Preliminary Plat. A full engineering report will be prepared during development of the KNTC-
Phase I construction drawings. The proposed preliminary plat and PUD phasing plan are
included in Appendix A.
KNTC is located north of Kalispell adjacent to and east of Highway 93 and south of the National
Guard Armory. The general legal description is S112 Of Section 19, T.29 N., R.21 W., P.M.,M.,
and of Portions Of Section 30, T.29 N., R.21 W., P.M.,M., All Located In The City Of Kalispell,
County Of Flathead, State Of Montana.
Below is general location map for the KNTC — Phase I.
CTA Architects Engineers
Preliminary Engineering Repork
II North Town Center - Phase l rojeci No. ANC
2.0 SANITARY SEWER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
The KNTC sanitary sewer system will be designed in accordance with most current version of
the `Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular DEQ-2 Design Standards
For Public Sewage Systems"(current version is Final 2016) and "City of Kalispell Standards for
Design and Construction" (current version is April 6th, 2015). Additionally, Tables V-1 and V-2 of
the "Design Standards and Specifications Policy, City of Bozeman, Montana — March 2004,
Addendum No. 5 approved 81261130will be used as a reference to determine flow rates for
different land uses, that are not specifically provided for in the City of Kalispell design standards
(See Appendix B).
The conceptual sanitary sewer system for KNTC is divided into two contributing areas. Sewage
from each area will be conveyed via gravity flow to the existing 18" sanitary sewer main near the
east right-of-way boundary of Highway 93. The "north area" system will convey sewage from
Phase I and additional lands to the east. The current concept proposes the "north area" trunk
being oversized to account for a future Whitefish Stage Road connection and servicing area to
the north and east of the development.
Preliminary pipe sizing for conveyance of peak flows has been completed for the entire PUD,
while assuming different land uses, average daily flows, minimum slope (Section 33.41 of DEQ-
2), and a peak flow factor of 3.05 (per City of Kalispell Design Standards). The following
average daily flows for each proposed land use were utilized for these calculations:
• Commercial: 1200 gallons per gross acre per day
o Assumes a "neighborhood commercial' land use. Table V-2 of Bozeman
standards.
• Residential: 980 gallons per gross acre per day
o Assumes an average of 5.2 dwelling units per acre. Table V-1 of Bozeman
standards.
• High Density Residential: 3375 gallons per gross acre per day
o Based on a proposed 300-unit Phase I development plan on 17 acres.
• School: 980 gallons per gross acre per day
o Assumed to be equal to Residential. Conservative estimate.
A land use map (SWR1), catchment/contributing area map (SWR2), and calculations are
provided in Appendix B.
CTA Architects Engineers
Preiirninary lEngineering Reoor
K, lispeil North Town Center — Phase i I Project No. LAC, KINJC
3.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The KNTC water distribution system will be designed in accordance with the most current
version of "Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular DEQ-1 Design
Standards For Water Works" (current version is August 8, 2014) and "City of Kalispell Standards
for Design and Construction" (current version is April 61", 2015).
Average day demands will be equivalent to the average day sewage flows for the subdivision
(See Appendix A calculations). Maximum day and peak hour flow factors are based on the data
included in the existing conditions WaterCAD model provided by HDR, Inc. This model
multiplies the average day demand by a factor of 2.7 to determine the "average maximum day
condition." The model calculates the peak hour demand by multiplying the "average maximum
day condition" by a factor of 1.5. The factor of 1.5 is derived from the diurnal flow pattern
included in the model, occurring at 12:00pm.
To determine the hydraulic effects on the existing system and resulting pressures at new
junctions, the KNTC-Phase I pipes, junctions, and demands were added to the WaterCAD
model and compared against the existing conditions model. The figure below shows the KNTC
nodes and pipes. Note that only KNTC-Phase I pipes and junctions are shown as "active".
Figure 3.1: KNTC WaterCAD Layout
Proposed. Point of
Connection
Proposed ' 107 C
Points of 12"
Connection
fV
J•:;i21 12" 11 ...
:-?Y's
3.1 Existing Conditions WaterCAD model Analysis
Following is a summary for each demand scenario analyzed within the model.
Average Day Demands: 1,406 out 1,409 junctions have pressures of 20psi and greater.
The three nodes not meeting the 20psi threshold are directly connected to storage tanks.
Maximum Day Demands: 1,406 out 1,409 junctions have pressures of 20psi and greater.
The three nodes not meeting the 20psi threshold are directly connected to storage tanks.
Maximum Day Demands plus Fire Flow: 1,398 out of 1,409 junctions satisfy the fire flow
constraints.
CTA Architects Engineers
Preliminary Engineering Report
tll North Towel Center — Phase i I Project No. LHv'
Peak Hour Demands: 1,406 out 1,409 junctions have pressures of 20psi and greater.
The three nodes not meeting the 20psi threshold are directly connected to storage tanks.
See Appendix C for exhibits showing different pressure ranges for each of the existing condition
demand scenarios.
3.2 KNTC — Phase I WaterCAD model Analysis
To model KNTC — Phase 1, average day demands were allocated to new junctions. The
following demands were added to the existing conditions model. Figure 3 below shows the
Phase I junctions.
• J-12: 38.36gpm (Commercial areas)
• J-8: 55.21 gpm (High Density Residential area)
Figure 3.2: KNTC-PH I WaterCAD Junctions
The following are brief summaries for each demand scenario (KNTC — Phase I
conditions).
Average Day Demands: 1,423 out 1,426 junctions have pressures of 20psi and greater.
The three nodes not meeting the 20psi threshold are directly connected to storage tanks.
KNTC — Phase I does not cause any additional nodes to fall below the 20 psi threshold.
Maximum Day Demands: 1,423 out 1,426 junctions have pressures of 20psi and greater.
The three nodes not meeting the 20psi threshold are directly connected to storage tanks.
KNTC — Phase I does not cause any additional nodes to fall below the 20 psi threshold
CTA Architects Engineers ;
Preliminary Engineering Report
di North Town Center — phase I I Project No, LHC
Maximum Day Demands plus Fire Flow: 1,405 out of 1,426 junctions satisfy the fire flow
constraints. The model shows there is an increase in the number of junctions that don't
meet the fire flow constraints. As in the case of the existing conditions model, a majority
of these junctions not meeting the set constraints are located in the far southern part of
Kalispell.
When analyzing specific junctions within the Phase I portion of the development, junction
J-8, the junction near the proposed high density residential area, will have 2,181 gpm
available at 20 psi.
Peak Hour Demands: 1,423 out 1,426 junctions have pressures of 20psi and greater.
The three nodes not meeting the 20psi threshold are directly connected to storage tanks.
KNTC — Phase I does not cause any additional nodes to fall below the 20 psi threshold
See Appendix C for exhibits showing different pressure ranges for each of the proposed
demand scenarios.
4.0 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The KNTC storm drainage system will be designed in accordance with the most current version
of `Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular DEC?-8 Montana Standards
for Subdivision Storm Drainage" (the current standard is 2002) and "City of Kalispell Standards
for Design and Construction" (the current standard is April 6th 2015).
4.1 Hydrologic Methodology
The site was divided into four major basins to define the existing drainage conditions as illustrated
on STR1. The TR-55 SCS method was used to determine the peak runoff rates and volumes for
both the pre and post -development conditions. The design storm events used in the analysis are
the NRCS Type 110-year/24-hour event and the NRCS Type 1100-year/24-hour event. Storm
events were modelled using Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2016"(SSA).
The time of concentration was developed using sheet flow, shallow flow and channelized flow
within SSA based on the existing flow patterns of the land. The average slope was determined
and an average overland velocity from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)
Drainage Manual, Chapter 7 — Hydrology, using the calculated overland slope and the existing
land use.
The SCS curve number (CN) method was used to calculate the amount of runoff generated from
the amount of rainfall and the soil's storage capacity. The area was classified as hydrologic soil
group B having moderate infiltration and moderately low runoff potential. Table 4.1.1 fist the CN
values used.
CTA Architects Engineers
Pre(irninarr Engineering Report
ell North Town Center — Phase 1
Tahip 4.1.1 - Cfi (iirvp Niirnhosrc
SCS Curve Numbers
used in the TR-55 Calculations
Description Curve Number
Undeveloped Areas
72
Commercial Develo ment
92
Nigh Density Residential
Development
85
Single Family Residential
Development
75
Landscaped Areas
61
No. LH
4.2 Pre -Development Conditions
The site is primarily cultivated farmland with small grain crops. There are two large moraine
mounds that are considered the main topographic features of the land. Storm water runoff flows
primarily from north to south across the site. A high ridge along the boundary of basin 1 and 2
runs north -south. Runoff from the northwest drains to the southwest to an adjacent property,
while runoff from the northeast drains southeast to a separate adjacent property. Runoff on the
west side of the property drains to Highway 93 where it is collected within the roadside ditch and
conveyed south. The southern portion of the site (Basin 4) directs runoff from the northeast and
conveys it south west to the Stillwater River.
The peak runoff was calculated using AutoCAD Storm and Sewer Analysis software (SSA). Both
the 10- and 100-year events were analyzed.
Table 4.2.1 summarizes the 10-year 24-hour peak runoff for each basin of the pre -developed
area.
I able 4.2.1 — 10-yr Pre -Development Peak Runoff
Element Area
Drainage Weighted
Rain Gage
Total
Total
Peak
Time
ID
Node ID
Curve
ID
Precipitation
Runoff
Runoff
of
Number
Concentration
(acres)
(inches)
(inches)
(cfs)
(days hh:mm:ss)
PRE_DEV_Basin_No_1 106.01
Out-001
72.00
Rain Gage-01
2.00
0,29
3.17
0 01:48:34
PRE_DEV_Basin_No_2 256.44
Out-002
72.00
Rain Gage-01
2.00
0.29
7.10
0 02:22:01
PRE_DEV_Basin_No_3 32.35
Out-003
72.00
Rain Gage-01
2.00
0.29
1.50
0 00:34:30
PRE_DEV_Basin_Na 4 88.60
Out-004
72.00
Rain Gage-01
2.00
0,29
3,35
0 00:57.33
A Architects Engineers
Kai
Preliminary Engineering Repo,i
II North Town C enter — Phase I
No. LI IC
Table 4.2.2 summarizes the 100-year 24-hour peak runoff for each basin of the pre -developed
area.
I able 4.2.2 — 100-vr Pre -Development Peak Runoff
Element
Area
Drainage Weighted
Rain Gage
Total
Total
Peak
Time
ID
Node ID
Curve
ID
Precipitation
Runoff
Runoff
of
Number
Concentration
(acres)
(inches)
(inches)
(cfs)
(days hh:mm:ss)
PRE_DEV_Basin_No_l
106.01
Out-001
72.00
Rain Gage-01
3.00
0.81
13.81
0 01:48:34
PRE_DEV_Basin_No_2
256.44
Out-002
72.00
Rain Gage-01
3.00
0.81
28.73
0 02:22:01
PRE_DEV_Basin_No_3
32.35
Out-003
72.00
Rain Gage-01
3.00
0,81
8.21
0 00:34:30
PRE_DEV Basin No 4
88.60
Out-004
72.00
Rain Gage-01
3.00
0.81
16.79
0 00:57:33
4.3 Post -Development Conditions — KNTC Phase I
The proposed site includes commercial and residential development. Phase I will consist of
primarily commercial development except for one multi -family developed parcel. The roadways
will be constructed of asphalt pavement with the City standard curb and gutter. The curb and
gutters will convey storm water to catch basins, a storm pipe network, and ultimately to regional
detention ponds.
The proposed site development will increase the amount of impervious surface area such as
asphalt, concrete and building rooftops that will in turn generate a higher volume of runoff. As per
the City of Kalispell standards the subdivision will utilize a regional detention pond for KNTC —
Phase I to mitigate the effects of the increased runoff rates and volumes.
Calculations for KNTC-Phase I were performed to determine the pre- and post -development 10
and 100-year runoff volumes and peak flow rates. The detention pond is sized to attenuate both
the 10 and 100-year post development events to less than or equal to the 10 and 100-year pre -
development events. The net volume increase of this runoff volume will be detained and released
via a two -stage control structure. An emergency spillway will be required and designed to
accommodate the 100-year post -development event in the event the pond control structure were
to be blocked by debris. The bottom elevation of the spillway will be placed at the top of the
calculated 100-year water surface level in the pond.
The following tables, 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, show the peak runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year events.
CTA Architects Engineers
Preliminary Engineering Repor[
41 North T own Center - Phase I I Proieci No.
I able 4.3.1 - 10-yr Post -Development Peak Runoff
Element
Area
Drainage Weighted
Rain Gage
Total
Total
Peak
Time
ID
Node ID
Curve
ID
Precipitation
Runoff
Runoff
of
Number
Concentration
(acres)
(inches)
(inches)
(cfs)
(days hh:mm:ss)
PH-1-No-1-1
17.35
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
1.24
7.67
0 00:49:05
PH-1-No-1-2
20.40
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
1.24
9.17
0 00:47:48
PH-1-No-1-3
8.71
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
1.24
3.61
0 00:54:31
PH-1-No-1-4
14.02
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
1.24
S.36
0 01:02:43
PH-1-No-1-5
12.07
64
72.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
0.29
0.46
0 00:55:40
PH-1-No-1-6
13.77
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
1.24
5.49
0 00:58:31
PH-1-No-1-7
21.62
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
1.24
9.51
0 00:49:30
PH-1-No
1-8
20.53
64
72.00
Rain Gage-02
2.00
0.29
0.76
0 00:59:41
Table 4.3.2 - 100-yr Post -Development Peak Runoff
Element
Area
Drainage Weighted
Rain Gage
Total
Total
Peak
Time
ID
Node ID
Curve
ID
Precipitation
Runoff
Runoff
of
Number
Concentration
(acres)
(inches)
(inches)
(cfs)
(days hh:mm:ss)
PH-1-No-1-1
17.35
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
2.16
13.65
0 00:49:05
PH-1-No-1-2
20.40
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
2.16
16.24
0 00:47:48
PH-1-No-1-3
8.71
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
2.16
6.43
0 00:54:31
PH-1-No-1-4
14.02
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
2.16
9.54
0 01:02:43
PH-1-No-1-5
12.07
64
72.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
0.81
2.33
0 00:55:40
PH-1-No-1-6
13.77
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
2.16
9.74
0 00:58:31
PH-1-No-1-7
21.62
64
92.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
2.16
16.92
0 00:49:30
PH-1-No-1-8
20.53
64
72.00
Rain Gage-02
3.00
0.81
3.80
0 00:59:41
Although Phase I is the area of focus, the storm pond and control structure will be sized to store
and release runoff from post -development Basin 1 (See STR2). The 10 and 100-year flows
leaving the Basin 1 pond will be at least equal to or less than the combined peak runoff rates of
Basins 1 and 3, as shown in STR1. Initial design calculations indicate the pond will require the
following specifications:
• Depth = 5'
• Top Area = 137,283 sf
• Top Elevation = 3005
• Bottom Area = 54,342 sf
• Bottom Elevation = 3000
• Side Slopes = 4:1
• Emergency Spillway Elevation = 3004.50
• Total Volume = 477,780 cf
CTA Architects Engineers -- 4
Preliminary 'Engineering Repori
Kalispell North Town Center — Phase l Project No. ' I iC KNTC
The initial design calculations indicate the following depths for the 10 and 100-year events.
• 10-year = 3.19' (Water Surface Elevation = 3003.19)
• 100-year = 4.46' (Water Surface Elevation = 3004.46)
The following control structure was assumed and modeled. A two -staged orifice structure (48"
Flat Top Manhole) is assumed, with a grate as the cover.
• Orifice #1: Size = 10", Elevation @ 3000.
• Orifice #2: Size = 2' wide x 1' height, Bottom Elevation @ 3003.30
The following are the proposed flows from the outlet structure.
• 10-year event: 4.5 cfs (Existing Conditions = 4.7 cfs)
• 100-year event: 13.6 cfs (Existing Conditions = 22 cfs)
Runoff from storms exceeding the 100-year 24-hour event will be conveyed overland within a
system of channels that will discharge to the same locations as the constructed detention facilities
and the natural drainage path. These channels will be sized for the 100-year 24-hour event and
the water will be routed to prevent buildings from being flooded.
A preliminary pipe sizing analysis has been completed for the minor conveyance system based
on the 10-year/24-hour event for the post development conditions (STR4). These sizes are to be
confirmed during the production of the construction documents and detailed design using the
methods outlined in the current versions of "Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) Circular DEQ-8 Montana Standards for Subdivision Storm Drainage, 2002" and "City of
Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction — April 6t", 2015".
Within Phase I, Rose Crossing will be constructed from Highway 93 to Whitefish Stage Road.
This road will sever a portion of Basin 2 from the natural drainage pattern. Beyond the main
portion of Phase I, Rose Crossing develops into a rural cross-section. For the rural cross-section,
ditches are to be sloped to the natural drainage that runs south and a culvert is to be sized to
convey the storm water under the road.
All final design and construction documents will be reviewed and approved by the City of
Kalispell Public Works Department.
4.4 HWY93 Intersections — Culvert Crossings
KNTC — Phase I will have two roadway connections to a Montana Department of Transportation
(MDT) jurisdictional route. The two connections will require culverts to convey existing ditch
drainage. Culverts will be designed in accordance with the MDT hydraulic standards. The
design will NOT increase the amount of runoff into MDT right-of-way.
4.5 Storm Water Quality
KNTC - Phase I storm water quality will be mitigated and controlled by the use of a regional
treatment pond. The Water Quality Volume (WQV) will be added to the regional detention pond.
The WQV will be in accordance with Section 4.6.2 of the "City of Kalispell Standards for Design
GTA Architects Engineers
Preliminary Engineering Report'
41 North Town Center — Phase i I Project No.
and Construction" (current version is April 6th, 2015). This section of the standard requires a
water quality volume of the `first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm using Arc M
condition, or as otherwise required by the current MS4 Permit. "
Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented with the collection and release of
storm water in order to minimize sedimentation and erosion. Low impact development methods
will be utilized where required. These methods may include the utilization of
bioretention/infiltration swales, storm catch basin sumps to collect sediment and mechanical
treatment devices where necessary to remove oils and sediments.
5.0 INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK
The overall road network for KNTC will consists of arterial, collector, and local streets. The
provided exhibits in Appendix E illustrate the proposed road network for KNTC Phase I. It is
currently proposed that Rose Crossing will have a temporary rural cross-section between
Whitefish Stage Road and the east boundary of the Phase I parcels. Section details of the
proposed road cross -sections are shown on RD1 (Appendix E). Detailed view of KNTC Phase I
is shown on RD2. A traffic impact study (TIS) has been completed and is included with the
preliminary plat submittal.
CTA Architects Engineers
PIONEERING ENVIRONMEN 1'�
December 23, 2016
Tom Jentz
Planning & Building Director
City of Kalissell
201 151 Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Kalispell North Town Center Traffic Impact Study (TIS) - Addendum #1
Mr. Jentz
This addendum is being prepared to better help the City review the preliminary plat application
as it relates to phasing the recommend improvements associated within the original TIS for the
above referenced project. Specifically, this addendum examines development of only Lot 5 and
the construction of the north and south (central at full build -out) approaches to Highway 93. See
attached phasing plan defining Phase 1 a.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation was obtained from the original TIS and is presented in Table 1.
Weekday
AM Peak Hour Adj.
Street
PM Peak Hour Adj. Street
ITE
LAND USE
Enterl
Exit
Total
Enter
ExitZ278152
Exit
Total
841
New Car Sales
2342
2342
4684
209
69
228
380
Unadjusted Value Total
2342
2342
4684
209
69
228380
Internal Capture Trips
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pass -by Trips
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Added to Adjacent Steets
2342
2342
4684
209
69
228
380
irrhl. 1 .I t��'��rrutinrr
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Given the configuration of the internal road system, location of access points to Highway 93,
and the proposed access geometry and permitted turning movements per MDT correspondence
the following trip assignment assumptions were made:
1. 80% of all new trips will be distributed to the north full access approach, 20% to the
south (in full development central access)'/ access approach.
2. Turning movements are proportioned per percentage of equivalent existing turning
movements.
g:\Ihc_gtcmp\2 traffic impact study\revised tis\addendum\2016_12_23_addendum_final.docx
http //www.ctagroup.com E-mail. info@ctagroup com
Kalispell North Town Center TIS Addendum
12/23/16
Page 2
3. Left turn land movements (LTMs) and right turn land movements (RTMs) from the
development are apportioned based on the existing north/south bound distribution (i.e.
westbound RTMs equal percentage of existing northbound through traffic).
4. Movements from each approach were apportioned to the impacted movement at the
adjacent approach (i.e. WB LTMs from the north approach were added to SBT
movement at the south approach).
The Table 2 below summarizes the trip assignment.
Approach
Moment
Classification
AM
PM
North
SB LTM
Enter
87
56
Norht
NB RTM
Enter
81
66
North
WB LTM
Exit
29
84
North
I WB RTM
Exit
27
99
South
SB LTM
Enter
22
14
South
NB RTM
Enter
20
16
South
WB RTM
Exit
14
46
7',1h1,, 1Ti'irr-irsi;�nritrfil
In addition to the trips created by the development of Lot 5 per the original TIS an annual growth
rate of 2.6% was applied to all movement. Conversations with the developer indicate they
anticipate the development of Lot 5 to proceed concurrently with this project. As such, the
growth rate was only applied for 1-year to all movements.
TRIP CALCULATIONS
Assigning the trips as discussed above Synchro 9 produces the following results:
ma�■oo
m�o�■o
jliblc .,'- 1 ( )S.Strimminatti r /arwblot, r;;
g:11hc_gtcmp\2 traffic impact studyWevised tis5addendum12016_12_23_addendum_final.docx
lilt p.1/vvww.clagroup.corn E-mail mfoLctagroup com
Kalispell North Town Center TIS Addendum
12/23/16
Page 3
Please note these results do not reflect the impacts of extending Rose Crossing through to
Whitefish Stage but only the proposed approaches to Highway 93 per the attached plan.
WARRANTS
A review of the warrants provided in the original TIS indicates the volume warrants are not met.
It is possible that Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System may still be met; however, given the
smaller volume on the minor leg it is more difficult to make the argument for a signal.
CONCLUSION
Examining the condition, if only Lot 5 is constructed as an auto dealership and only the north
and south (in full development central) access are constructed to Highway 93, all legs of the
intersection will function about level of service C with no geometry changes to Highway 93 and
no signalization. However, it should be noted that during the PM Peak hour the west bound left -
turning movement at the north approach falls below level of service C.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CTA ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
Erik Garberg, PE
Encl: Level of Service Calculations
Phasing Plan
cc: CTA File -
g:\Ihc_gtcmp\2 traffic impact study\revised tis\addendum\2016_12 23_addendum_final.docx
h11p//www.c[agiOLJP.com E-mail info@ctagroup.com
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/22/2016
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
30
28
599
83
89
651
Future Vol, veh/h
30
28
599
83
89
651
Conflicting Peds, Whr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
Storage Length
200
-
400
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
2
0
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
33
30
651
90
97
708
Major/Mihor;
Minorl
Major1
- Major2
Conflicting Flow All
1243
371
0
0
741
0
Stage 1
696
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
547
-
-
Critical Hdwy
6.84
6.94
-
4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
5.84
-
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
5.84
-
-
Follow-up Hdwy
3.52
3.32
2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
167
626
-
862
Stage 1
456
-
-
Stage 2
544
-
-
-
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
148
626
862
-
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
343
-
-
-
Stage 1
456
-
-
Stage 2
483
-
ApProach '
WB
NB
SB
.
HCM Control Delay, s
13.9
0
1.2
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane/Major Mumt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2; 5BL '_SB;T
Capacity (veh/h)
343
626
862
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.095
0.049
0.112
HCM Control Delay (s)
16.6
11
9.7
HCM Lane LOS
C
B
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- 0.3
0.2
0.4 -
Lot 5 AM Peak Hour - Growth.syn Synchro 9 Light Report
Erik Garberg Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
10- Hwy 93 & South 12122/2016
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement,
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
0
14
668
21
23
658
Future Vol, veh/h
0
14
668
21
23
658
Conflicting Peds, Whr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
0
-
0
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
-
0
-
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
0
15
726
23
25
715
Major/Minor
M'inor1
Major7'
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
374
0
0
749
0
Stage 1
-
-
-
_
_
Stage 2
-
_
Critical Hdwy
-
6.94
4.14
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
-
-
_
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
-
-
_
_
_
Follow-up Hdwy
-
3.32
2.22
-
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
0
623
856
-
Stage 1
0
-
_
Stage 2
0
-
_
_
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
-
623
856
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
-
_
Stage 1
Stage 2
_
Approach
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
10.9
0
0.3
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane/Maior,Mvint NBT NBRWBLhf ;SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)
- 623
856
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.024
0.029
HCM Control Delay (s)
- 10.9
9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS
- B
A
HCM 95th °f%tile Q(veh)
- 0.1
0.1 -
Lot 5 AM Peak Hour - Growth.syn Synchro 9 Light Report
Erik Garberg Page 2
HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hwy 93 & Rose Crossing 12/23/2016
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
tT.
f
Traffic Vol, veh/h
86
102
976
68
57
803
Future Vol, veh/h
86
102
976
68
57
803
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
200
400
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
2
0
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
93
111
1061
74
62
873
Major/Minor:
Minorl
Majorl
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
1658
567
0
0
1135
0
Stage 1
1098
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
560
-
-
Critical Hdwy
6.84
6.94
-
4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
5.84
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
5.84
-
-
-
Follow-up Hdwy
3.52
3.32
-
-
2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
— 89
467
-
611
-
Stage 1
281
-
-
-
Stage 2
535
-
-
-
Platoon blocked, %
-
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
-- 80
467
-
-
611
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
239
-
-
-
Stage 1
281
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
481
-
AoproaGh .
W6 ,
NB
S.B
HCM Control Delay, s
21.6
0
0.8
HCM LOS
C
Minor. Lane/Major Mymt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2: - SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)
- 239
467
611 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
- 0.391
0.237
0.101 -
HCM Control Delay (s)
- 29.4
15.1
11.6 -
HCM Lane LOS
- D
C
B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- 1.8
0.9
0.3 -
Notes
-: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Lot 5 PM Peak Hour - Growth.syn Synchro 9 Light Report
Erik Garberg Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
10: Hwy 93 & South 12/23/2016
Intersection`
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
TT
s
Traffic Vol, veh/h
0
47
996
16
14
875
Future Vol, veh/h
0
47
996
16
14
875
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
0
0
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
-
0
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
0
51
1083
17
15
951
MajorlMinor _
Minorl
Majorl
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
550
0
0
1100
0
Stage 1
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
-
-
Critical Hdwy
-
6.94
4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
-
-
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Hdwy
-
3.32
2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
0
479
-
630
Stage 1
0
-
-
Stage 2
0
-
-
-
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
-
479
630
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
-
-
Stage 1
-
-
Stage 2
Approach
WB
-
NB
SIB
HCM Control Delay, s
13.4
0
0.2
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane/Maior MVmt NBT NBRWBLnIr SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)
- 479
630 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
- 0.107
0.024 -
HCM Control Delay (s)
- 13.4
10.9 -
HCM Lane LOS
- B
B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- - 0.4
0.1 -
Lot 5 PM Peak Hour - Growth.syn Synchro 9 Light Report
Erik Garberg Page 2
OVON 30VIS HSI=1311HM
z
0 0
L----------------------
CS "MHOIH 's'n
a W Ul
Z w
Lu
0 0 o
0
W uj w w w
a
0 IL (L Q. 0.
CL
ro
I
P10NEERI N G !-; '�_`
December 2, 2016
Tom Jentz
Planning & Building Director
City of Kalipsell
201 1 It Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Kalispell North Town Center Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
Mr. Jentz
This letter is to inform you that the TIS attached hereto was co -prepared and co-authored by
Erik Garberg, PE and Patrick McGowen PhD, PE, PTOE. The document meets the general
standards of practice and a care and used industry accepted methods of analysis and
evaluation in its preparation.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CTA AR ITECTS ENGINEERS
Erik Parberg, PE
cc: CTA File -
g'lihc_gtcmpQ traffic impact studyVevised tis12016_12_01_preperation letter.docx
pu MU4"__
Patrick McGowen, PhD, PE, PTOE
http://www.ctagroup.com E-mail: info@ctagroup.com
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
KALISPELL NORTH TOWN CENTER
HIGHWAY 93
KALISPELL, MT
Prepared For.
Stillwater Corporation
PO Box 7338
Kalispell, MT 59904
Prepared By:
CTA Architects Engineers
411 East Main, Suite 101
Bozeman, MT
406.922.7121
www,dagrou .corn
CTA Project No. LHC_KNTC
December 05, 2012
l'z•r-.It,
Erik Garberg, PE
Traffic Impact StUdy
Kalispell North Town Center
/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
........................................................... ---.----.3
2.0 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT ................. ........ --................. ------..'—....8
2.1 Off -site and Surrounding Development .... ................ ................ ............... —............................
3
22 Description ofOn-site Development ..... ............................................ ......... ...........................
4 /
2.2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................
4
2.2.2 Land Use and Intensity ... ..............................................................................................
S
2.2.3 Site Plan and Access Geonntrks.................................................................................... 5
3.2.4 Applicable Zoning Criteria .................... .........................................................................
6
2.2.5 Development Phasing and Land Use ..............................................................................
6
3.0 STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ..................................... ------------_-----'7
3.1 Study Area ....... ................................ ....... ___ ...............................................................................
7
3.2.2 Road Classification .......... ..............................................................................................
7
32 Existing Traffic and Turning Movement Counts ............. ...... .................... ........... ---..............
8
4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC -------------------_---__________.�g
41 Trip Generation ................ ............ ..............................................................................................
g
42 Trip Distribution ............ .............. ........... ..................................................... ....................
11
5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................... ............................
15
il Capacity and Level nfSemice........... ................ ............... ................. —........................ -........
lS
5.1.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................
1S
5.1-2 Base Condition 2[22....................................................................................................
16
5.2'3 Base Condition 2B21with Phase 2...............................................................................
27
5.14 Base Condition 2(21with Phase 2and Phase 2............................................................
17
3.2 Warrant Analysis ......................................... .................................
19
... ............................... .......
£22 Phase 1........................................................................................................................
19
6.0 FINDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS ................................................... ...... ............. .... —19
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................
21
Figure 1—Aerial View nfSite
Figure 2—Current Site Zoning
Figure 3— MDT AADTCounts
Figure 4—Existing Turning Movements and Trip Counts
Figure 5-Conceptualization ofOrigin-Destination Traffic Pattern
Figure 8—Base Turning Movements and Trip Counts
Figure 7'Base Condition + Phase 1 Turning Movements
Figure 8' Base Condition + Phase 1 and 2Tunning Movements
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic Impact Sturdy
11 North Town Center Project No.
TABLES
Table 1 — Access Configuration
Table 2 — Development Phasing and Land Use per ITE Code
Table 3 — MDT AADT Counts
Table 4 — Trip Generation Phase 1
Table 5 - Trip Generation Phase 2
Table 6 — Trip Generation Full Build -out
Table 7 — Trip Distribution
Table 8 — Existing Delay and LOS
Table 9 — Base Delay and LOS
Table 10 — Base + Phase 1 Delay and Level of Service
Table 11 — Base + Phase 1 Delay and Level of Service
Table 12 — Failing Intersection Legs
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Phasing Plan
Appendix B — Land use Plan
Appendix C — MDT Letter
Appendix D — Preliminary Plat
Appendix E — Trip Counts
Appendix F — Base Trip, Trip Count, Trip Distribution, and Trip Assignment Values
Appendix G — Level of Service Calculations
• Existing
• Base
• Base + Phase 1
• Base + Phase 1 and 2
• Mitigation
Appendix H — Warrants Summary
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic Impact Study
I North Tow; � Center Liect to o. L; C
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In 2007 a traffic report was provided for a larger development concept titled Glacier
Town Center. Since that time the market has changed and the land use plan has
been updated The new concept proposes 9 phases, a phasing plan is included in
Appendix A. Per Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) requirements this
Traffic Impact Study will review the first two phases. The first phase of the project will
include:
• 12 Commercial lots varying is size from 1.15 acres to 7 acres
• 1 Multi -family lot, 17 acres in size
At this time the project is only requesting entitlements for these Phase 1
improvements.
The second phase will include (not included in this preliminary plat submittal):
• 44 acres of commercial land
d 12 acres of Elementary School
The first phase of the project is to provide east -west access through the site from
Whitefish Stage to Highway 93 across the northern boundary of the development via
an extension of Rose Crossing. It will also provide a new access to Highway 93 at
the approximate midpoint of the property. The second phase will include a third
access point to Highway 93 at the southern boundary of the property and new
access to Reserve Street along the southern boundary of the development. A
detailed conceptual road network is included in Appendix B, Land Use Plan. In
discussions with MDT they have indicated that they will:
1. Allow the mid access to Highway 93 to be a 3/ approach.
2. Allow the north and south accesses to Highway 93 to be signalized when
warrants are met.
3. Allow a full service access to Whitefish Stage at the extension of Roase
Crossing.
Appendix C contains MDT's initial review comments for the project.
2.1 Off -site and Surroundinci Development
The proposed project area is bounded by:
South: Stillwater River, Applied Materials, and Glacier Memorial Gardens
North: Nation Gard Facility and Open Farmland
East: Open Farmland
West: US HWY 93
In general, the current area is rural to suburban in nature but is close to several large
commercial centers at the north end of Kalispell and is served by City utilities. The project
CTA Architects Engineers
} ra.7iic Impact stuc"Y
North Town Center roles No.t_HC KNTC
will serve as a continuation of this commercial corridor and be connected to City water and
sewer
2.2 Description of On -site Development
2.2.1 Location
The project is located east of US Highway 93, west of Whitefish Stage Rd, and north of
West Reserve Drive. The property is approximately bounded on the north by Nob Hill Loop.
The project can be legally described as:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the south half of Section 19, and the north half of Section 30,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 21
West, P.M,,M., Flathead County, Montana; thence along the north line of said Section 30,
S89041'25"E 69.82 feet to a point on the east boundary of U.S. Highway 93 right-of-way
and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along the north line of said Section 30,
S89041'25"E 1237.84 feet to the west sixteenth corner common to said Sections 19 and 30;
thence along the sixteenth line, N00033'31'VV 1320.49 feet to the southwest sixteenth
corner of said Section 19; thence along the sixteenth line, S89°46'04"E 629.90 feet; thence
S00°00'1 VW 1312.88 feet; thence S44°59'55"E 7.07 feet; thence EAST 275.88 feet to the
beginning of a 1040.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence along said curve 223.72 feet
through an angle of 12°19'30"; thence S77°40'30"E 144.74 feet to the beginning of a
1360.00 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve 621.28 feet through an angle
of 26010'27"; thence N76°09'04"E, 150.75 feet, to the beginning of a 1040.00 foot radius
curve to the right; thence along said curve 251.33 feet through an angle of 13°50'46";
thence N89°59'50"E 1706.12 feet to a point on the east line of said Section 19; thence
along said east line, S00°37'31 "E 41.97 feet to the southeast corner of said Section 19;
thence along the south line of said Section 19, said south line also being the north line of
Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 15221, on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder,
N89040'28"W 688.05 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract 1; thence along the west line
of said Tract 1, S00°12'44"E 41.98 feet; thence S89°59'50"W 1018.94 feet to the beginning
of a 960.00 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve 231.99 feet through an
angle of 13°50'46"; thence S76°09'04"W 150.75 feet to the beginning of a 1440.00 foot
radius curve to the right; thence along said curve 657.83 feet through an angle of
26°10'27"; thence N77°40'30"W, 144.74 feet to the beginning of a 960.00 foot radius curve
to the left; thence along said curve 206.51 feet through an angle of 12'19'30"; thence
WEST 265.89 feet; S45°00'05" 7.07 feet-, thence S00°00'11"W 1235.11 feet; thence WEST
1868.86 feet to a point on the east boundary of U.S. Highway 93 right-of-way; thence along
said east boundary through the following five courses: 1) N00°11113"E, 164.00 feet; 2)
N14°13'23"E, 61.85 feet; 3) NOVI1'01"E, 940.05 feet; 4) North 13°56'35" West 61.89 feet;
5) North 00°10'44" East 100.60 feet to a point on the north line of said Section 30 and the
POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Tract contains 81.091 acres.
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic impact Siudy
I North Town Center 'ro,ect No.LHC KNTC
Pr
Figure I - Aerial View of Site
2.2.2 Land Use and Intensity
Currently the property is used for agricultural purposes. The proposed development will
represent a significant increase in use and intensity. The project will continue the growth of
commercial uses in the area including Hutton Ranch, automobile dealerships, schools, and a
manufacturing facilities. The project will be accomplished over multiple phases as the market
dictates.
2.2.3 Site Plan and Access Geometries
A copy of the preliminary plat is located in Appendix D showing lot configuration and access
points. Table 1 below summarizes the proposed access points for Phases 1 and 2 per MDT
review comments discussed in Section 1.0.
Access
Phase
Traffic Control
93 North
1
Signlized'
93 Mid
1
314 Stop Controlled
93 South
2
Signlized'
Whitefish Stage
North
1
Full Stop Controlled
Reserve South
2
Full Stop Controlled
Note 1 When Warrents are rret
Note 2 Additional right-of-w ay required
Table I — Access Configuration
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic Impac S[udy
f North Town Center
2.2.4 Applicable Zoning Criteria
NoLK
In 2007 a planned unit development (PUD) was approved for an extensive mixed -use
development including a regional shopping center and various residential product types.
The project is officially zoned by the City of Kalispell as B-21PUD or General, Central
Business, Industrial Business (Figure2).
Figure 2 - Current Zoning
The project as proposed will required an administrative modification to the original PUD for
Phase 1 due to the inclusion of the 300 units of Multi -family proposed on Lot 1. Phase 2
will required a more intense modification of the PUD to include the school, not originally
anticipated, and to update the land use plan included in Appendix B.
2.2.5 Development Phasing and Land Use
Table two below provides a summary of the land uses selected for this TIS and their
corresponding ITE land use code and phase (through phase 2). At this time 9 total phases
are identified with Phases 1 and 2 including parcel layout and detailed analysis in this TIS.
Depending on the market phasing may be adjusted by the appropriate City process. The
phasing plan is included in Appendix A and the Land Use Plan in Appendix B.
CTA Architects Engineers
I rafIc (mpacs Study
E North Town Canter Project NoIHC
LOT
PHASE
ITE CODE
DISCRIPTION
1
1
220
Apartments
2
1
312
Business Hotel
3
1
850
Supermarket
4
1
826
Specialty Retail Center
5
1
881
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -through
6
1
715
Single Tenant Office Building
7
1
710
General Office Building
8
1
841
New Car Sales
9
1
912
Drive-in Bank
10
1
932
High -Turnover (Sit-down) Restaurant
11
1
710
General Office Building
12
1
934
Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive Thorugh Windo
13
1
934
Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive Thorugh Windo
Elementary
School
2
520
Elementary School
,Commerciall
2
820
Shopping Center
Table 2 - Development Phasing and -land Use per ITE Corte
3.1 Study Area
The project area is as described in Figure 1, Section 2.2.1. This study will review the new
access identified in Table 1 in Section 2.2.3 as well as the impacts at the signalized
intersection of Whitefish Stage and Reserve. The project does not review the impacts at
Highway 93 and Reserve. This intersection has already been built to full capacity and there
is limited mitigation that could be proposed.
3.1.1 Road Classification
The primary roads that will accommodate traffic to and from the proposed development are
US Highway 93 and Whitefish stage road. Additionally, West Reserve Drive will also be
directly impacted by the proposed development. The following are the current conditions of
these existing roadways:
US Highway 93 is a north -south major arterial roadway that has two through lanes in each
direction. At its intersection with West Reserve drive, US 93 have exclusive left -turn lanes
and an exclusive northbound right -turn lane. The speed limit in this area is 55 MPH.
Whitefish Stage Road is a minor arterial north -south roadway that has a through lane in each
direction. The speed limit is 50 MPH north of West Reserve Drive and 45mph south of West
Reserve Drive.
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic Impact SrLfdy
If .11orfli Town Cpnrer
Na LK
West Reserve Drive is an east -west minor arterial that provides one through lane in each
direction. At its intersection with Whitefish Stage road, an exclusive left turn lane is provided.
At the intersection with US Highway 93, dual westbound left turn lanes and an exclusive east
bound left and right turn lane are available. The speed limit on West Reserve Drive is 50mph
east of US 93 and 55 MPH west of US 93.
3.2 Existing Traffic and Turning Movement Counts
Average annual daily traffic (AADT) estimates from MDT are shown in Figure 3. The AADT is
based on short term counts (two days to one week in duration) that are adjusted by seasonal
and day -of -week factors, The seasonal and day of week factors are found from nearby
permanent count stations and interpolated from all of the two-day counts. The "E" indicates that
a short term count was not taken that year, but estimated from the prior year based on growth of
other nearby counts. All this is important to note that traffic is variable and although these are
based on actual count data, they are estimates. These AADT indicate an average annual
growth rate on these roads of 2.6 percent. Compared to the land use growth projections in the
2006 Kalispell Transportation Plan this is slightly higher than the moderate growth scenario
(1.59 percent population growth, 1.88 percent employment growth) but less than the high
growth scenario (2.23 percent population growth, 4.01 percent employment growth).
The 2.6 percent growth rate will be applied to turning movement counts taken in recent years to
bring the count up to an estimated 2016 number and to forecast out to 2021.
ata
.J
J 4T
2012
15670
2013
16970
2014
16220
2015
16550
lei
2012 19430
2012
3170
�a 1. 2.013 18710 (E)
2013
3300 (E)
2024 19000
2014
3460
2015 20650
2015
3609
2012
17200
2013
17460 (E)
2014
13550
2015
18429
Figure 3 - MDT .AADT Counts
Table 3 below summarizes these MDT AADT counts in the area from 2011-2015:
CTA Architects Engineers
Trz ffiCknpau S�dy
I North Town Center Projer-� "Jo, L,'-!C KNTC
(A) Actual Count
Estimated Count
Manual Count = Actual Count
'ooI& 15 IVu/L%xu/ counts
Figure 4below summarizes the compilation ofmanual counts taken sdvS3asvveUas
Whitefish Crossing Highwayby MDT
8/8-8/2016. As discussed abnVetononna|�othatwmvo|ueoagruv�hfactorof2.' percent was
applied tothe 2O14data. Count summaries our included inAppendix E. Appendix Fcontains
larger copies of the trip count, trip distribution, and trip assignment figures.
Figom4-Existing Turning Movements and Trip Counts (normalized for2O16)
4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC
4.1 Trip Generation
CTAArchitects Engineers �
g
I ra"IiC 1171pact S uCly
iNorth Town Center Project No.
The ITE land uses selected for this project are summarized in Table 2, Section 2.2.5. The
selected uses come from conversations with the developer and a review of tenants in
surrounding commercial developments. As actual site plans have not been prepared a
general development efficiency of .25 or 25 percent was selected. What this means is raw
land was converted to building square footage at a 1:4 ratio, for every acre of total parcel
area 25 percent was projected to be building. This figure comes from a review of national
data and reviewing developed pads of similar uses within the City.
The tables below summarize the trip generation based on the values provided in the 91h
addition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual:
Weekday
AM Peak Hour Adj.
Street
PM Peak Hour Adj. Street
ITE
LAND USE
Enterl
Exit
Totall
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
220
Apartments
998
997
1995
31
122
153
121
65
186
312
Business Hotel
509
1 509
1018
48
33
81
52
35
87
710
Office General
199
198
397
49
7
56
9
45
54
715
Office Single Tenant
134
134
268
36
5
41
6
34
40
826
Special Retail Center
1330
1329
2659
NR
NR
0
72
91
163
841
New Car Sales
2342
2342
4684
209
69
278
152
1 228
380
850
Supermarket
1789
1789
3578
74
45
119
169
163
332
881
Pharmacv/Drugstore with Drive -through
824
823
1647
31
28
59
-6
84
168
912
Drive-in Bank
445
444
889
41
31
72
73
73
146
932
High -Turnover Sit Down Rest,
445
445
890
42
34
76
41
1 28
69
934 1
Fast Food Rest with drive -through
1241
1240
2481
116
111
227
85
78
163
Unadjusted Value Total
102561
10250
20506
677
485
1-f621
864
924
1788
Internal Capture Trips
555
555
1110
0
0
0
63
63
126
Pass -by Trips
0
0
0
66
66
132
67
67
134
Volume Added to Adjacent Steets
9701
9695
19396
611
419
1030
734
794
1528
Table 4 - Phase 1 Trip Generation
Weekday
I AM Peak Hour Adj.
Street
PM Peak Hour Adj.
Street
ITE
LAND USE
Enterl
Exit
Totall
Enter
Exit
Total
Enterl
Exit
Total
520
Elementary School
571
571
1142
216
169
385
41
49
90
820
Shopping Center
10227
10226
20453
285
175
460
853
924
1777
Unadjusted Value Total
10798
10797
21595
501
3"
845
894
973
1867
Internal Capture Trips
0
0
0
0
0
0-0-0
0
Pass -by Trips
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Added to Adjacent Steets
10798
10797
21595
5011
3441
845
894
973
1867
Table 5 - Phase 2 Trip Generation
CTA Architects Engineers 10
Traffic Impact Study
I North Town Center
',Io, LHC
weekday
AM Peak Hour Adi.
Street
PM Peak Hour Adj.
Street
ITE
LAND USE
Enterl
Exitl
Total
Enter
Ex€t
Total
Enterl
Exit
Total
220
Apartments
998
997
1995
31
122
153
121
65
186
312
Business Hotel
509
509
1018
48
33
81
52
35
87
710
Office General
199
198
397
49
7
56
9
45
54
715
office single Tenant
134
134
268
36
5
41
6
34
40
826
Special Retail Center
1330
1329
2659
NR
NR
0
72
91
163
841
New Car Sales
2342
2342
4684
209
69
278
152
228
380
850
Supermarket
1789
1789
3578
74
45
119
169
163
1 332
881
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -through
824
1 823
1647
31
28
59
84
84
168
912
Drive-in Bank
445
444
889
41
31
72
73
73
146
932
High-Tumover Sit Down Rest.
445
445
890
42
34
76
41
28
69
934
Fast Food Rest. with drive -through
1241
1240
2481
116
111
227
85
78
163
520
Elementary School
571
571
1142
216
169
385
41
49
90
820
Shopp€ng Center
10227
10226
20453
285
175
460
853
924
1777
Unadjusted Value Total
21054
21047
42101
1178
829
2007
1758
1897
3655
Internal Capture Trips
555
555
1110
0
0
0
63
63
126
Pass -by Trips
0
0
0
66
66
132
67
67
334
Volume Added to Adjacent Steels
20499
20492
40991
1112
763
1875
1628
1767
3395
Table b- l otal I np Generation
4.2 Trip Distribution
Trips generated by this development will exit (or enter) the study area through one of the seven
nodes in Figure 5 denoted by letters A through F (this excludes internal capture, pass -by trips
are dealt with separately). Through these nodes, the trips connect to other land uses in the
region. The attractiveness of the other land areas is estimated using the existing traffic that
passes through these nodes. For example, the volume of traffic exiting node A (heading
northbound on US 93) compared to traffic volumes exiting all other nodes is an indicator of the
relative attractiveness of the trips generated exiting through node A.
A gravity model was used to distribute trips generated to the seven nodes. This provides, for
each trip, the two endpoints (a specific lot in the development, and a node at the study
boundary). With the endpoints known, the trips for each origin -destination pair were assigned to
the shortest path with an all -or -nothing assignment. Driveways were assumed to connect to
interior streets and not major arterials (US 93, Rose Crossing or Whitefish Stage). When travel
times distances were similar, a left turn at a signal was preferred over the 3/ intersection (93
Mid). Also when travel distances were similar for Phase 2, a right turn onto Reserve was
assumed faster than a left turn onto US 93. In one case travel was split equally between two
paths.
CTA Architects Engineers 11
Kali
Rose Crossing
m
N
M �
Reserve
Traffic irnpact S(udy I
nt North Town Ceer roiect i do.LtlC `KPIT C
Figure 5 - Conceptualization or Origin -Destination Traffic Pattern
Because pass -by will access land uses on the west side of the development, these pass -by trips
were assumed to come from existing traffic on US 93. The pass -by trips were split
proportionally among existing northbound and southbound traffic. Table 7 below summarizes
the distribution by node.
Am Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
exit enter exit enter
A
91
133
173
160
B
134
195
253
234
C
32
46
60
55
D
79
116
150
139
E
83
122
158
146
F
26
37
48
45
Table 7 - Trip Distribution by Node
While this project only proposed Phase 1 improvements MDT has requested we examine the
first two Phases of the project therefore, this TIS reviews the existing condition and three future
scenarios:
1. Existing condition — Reviews the function of the existing intersections with the current
traffic counts.
2. Base Condition — Reviews a 5 year time horizon, 2021, assuming no development
and applies the 2.6 percent growth factor to all movements at the existing
intersections.
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic Impact S`udj
I tMorth Town Center rrojeet No.L-iC KNTC
3. Base Condition + Phase 1 - Reviews the base condition and adds the turning
movements created by the trip generation from the development for Phase 1 to all
movements.
4. Base Condition + Phase 1 and Phase 2 - Reviews the base condition and adds the
turning movements created by the trip generation from the development for both
Phase 1 and Phase 2 to all movements.
The figures below summarize the movements for each future scenario, larger copies are
included in Appendix F. Existing turning movements and counts are provided in Figure 4.
Although the exact timing of construction depends on a number of factors, five years was used
for an assumed time for buildout.
Figure 6 — Base Turning Movements and Trip Counts
CTA Architects Engineers 3
Traffic Impact Study
I North Town Centel,
Figure 7 -Base + Phase I Turning Movements
No U-IC
CTA Architects Engineers
14
Kkilt
Tralfic impact Study
North Town Center
�4-175it391 1
rat - 4rji!JQi .I K � � ,�� 1AiJ9t
22fi1.aJ
2Ar(420)
�--•-
1 4 � r• __ I 624 (D-11 ► 954 (012i
�-- �-�
- "aa
1M00SElEC m 3:Ku f �.r—66i55j
�7
.._. .i j Lix ed.r *mn•�r
Figure 3 - Base + Phase 9 and Phase 2 Turning Movejnents
5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
5.1 Capacity and Level of Service
To analyze the level of service (LOS) and delay this reports uses Synchro 9 by Trafficware.
5.1.1 Existing Conditions
Only two of the intersections/approaches analyzed in this report currently exist. These are:
• Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage
• Reserve and Whitefish Sage
Table 7 below summarizes the existing delay and LOS at these locations. Figure 4
summarizes the trips used for this existing conditions analysis.
CTA Architects Engineers
Tr@"'ic Impact Study
iVni;h Trnn)n r:anrar
TIME
AM
PM
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Type of
Control
TWSC
Whitefish
NA
NA
NA
NA
ENB
9•9
A
11
B
Stage & Rose
0
A
0
A
Crossing
0.7
A
1.1
A
Type of
Control
Signalized
Whitefish
EB
12.8
B
25.8
C
WB
15.7
B
15.3
B
Stage &
NB
12.5
B
19.4
B
Reserve
SB
10.5
B
16.3
B
,'able 8 - Existing Delay and Level of Service
To perform the calculations for the signalized intersection it was assumed the signal was
actuated but not coordinated, timing was optimized, and lane geometry reflects the existing
condition. If the signal configuration is different than additional analysis may be required.
Appendix G contains detailed level of service calculations for all scenarios.
5.1.2 Base Condition 2021
The base condition models traffic at a design year with no new growth generated form the
development but only the back ground growth in traffic. For this analysis again 2.6 percent
was used as annual growth rate over 5-years. Figure 6 summarizes the trips used in the
base condition. Table 8 below summarized the delay and level of service.
TIME
AM
PM
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Type of
Control
TWSC
Whitefish
Stage &
Rose
Crossing
EB
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB
10.1
B
11.5
B
NB
0
A
0
A
SB
0.7
A
1.1
A
Type of
Control
Signalized
Whitefish
Stage &
Reserve
EB
11.9
B
49.3
D
WB
15.2
B
18.9
B
NB
15.4
B
23
C
SB
13.9
B
17.1
B
Table 9 - Base Delay and Level of Service
CTA Architects Engineers c
Traffic Impact Study
I North Town Center Project iVc.LNC K JTC
It should be noted that if no modifications are made, the PM Peak will have one leg of the
Reserve and Whitefish Stage intersection that falls below level of service C even with no
trips generated by this development.
5.1.3 Base Condition 2021 with Phase 1
Values below reflect the addition of the Phase 1 access points and turning movements and
the addition of trips generated by this development. Where lane geometry exists
intersection legs were modeled with this existing configuration, for new legs the model
selects geometry appropriate to the scale of the project and number of turning movements.
The traffic volume used for this analysis is summarized in Figure 7.
TIME
AM
PM
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
Delay
LO5
Type of
Control
TWSC
Whitefish
EB
15
C
39.6
E
WB
34.9
D
190.4
F
Stage & Rose
NB
5
A
3.6
A
Crossing
SB
0.5
A
0.8
A
Type of
Control
Signalized
Whitefish
EB
14.2
B
69.5
E
WB
26.1
C
41.5
D
Stage &
NB
22.7
C
39.2
D
Reserve
SB
20.9
C
41.7
D
Type of
Control
Signalized
EB
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB
18.5
B
29.3
D
Rose Crossing
NB
3.8
A
5.1
A
& Highway 93
SB
3.8
A
5.1
A
Type of
Control
TWSC
Mid
EB
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB
12.4
B
17.9
C
Approach &
NB
0
A
0
A
Highway 93
SB
0.6
A
0.8
A
Table 10 - Base + Phase i Delay and Level of Service
5.1.4 Base Condition 2021 with Phase 1 and Phase 2
CTA Architects Engineers
Traffic impact Study
North Fown Center JProject into.
Values below reflect the addition of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 access points and turning
movements. Where lane geometry exists intersection legs were modeled with this existing
configuration, for new legs the model selects geometry appropriate to the scale of the
project and number of turning movements.
TIME
AM
PM
Intersection
Approach
Delay
LOS
[Delay
LOS
Type of
Control
TWSC
Whitefish
EB
14.5
B
56.4
F
' WB
30.2
D
$
F
Stage &
N B
2.9
A
0.3
A
Rose
SB
0.4
A
0.7
A
Crossing
Type of
Control
Signalized
Whitefish
EB
17.2
B
63-5
E
WB
23.6
C
39.3
D
Stage &
N'B
156.5
F
M.1
F
Reserve
SB
39.6
D
80.9
F
Type of
Control
Signalized
Rose
EB
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB
19.7
B
20.2
C
Crossing &
NB
4.2
A
7.2
A
Highway 93
SB
4.5
A
6.4
A
Type of
Control
TWSC
Mid
EB
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB
13.5
B
48.1
E
Approach &
NB
0
A
0
A
Highway 93
SB
0.7
A
0.8
A
Type of
Control
Signalized
South
EB
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB
60.4
E
61.9
E
Approach &
NB
4.3
A
6.7
A
Highway 93
58
3.7
A
15.2
B
Type of
Control
TWSC
Reserve
EB
0
A
0
A
WB
0
A
0.0
A
Approach &
NB
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reserve
58
188.3
F
$
F
Table 11 - Base + Phase 1 and Phase 2 Level of Service and Delay
CTA Architects Engineers -18
Traffic Impact Study
I North Town Center
6.2 Warrant Analysis
5.2.1 Phase 9
NTC
The project requires a signal at the proposed intersection of Highway 93 and Rose Crossing
to maintain an acceptable level of service. As this intersection does not exist and therefore
no actual counts are not available the Base + Phase 1 condition was selected for the
analysis period. Three warrants where selected for review.
• Warrant 3, Peak Hour (based on 2021 Phase 1 build -out condition)
• Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 8, Roadway Network
The data for the traffic model was imported to Warrant9 software from Trafficware. The
analysis indicated that:
• Warrant 3 Condition B was met
• Warrant 6 was met
• Warrant 8 was met
ITE Trip Generation values only allow for projection of ADT and Peak Hour trips, therefore
evaluating the 8 and 4 hour warrants is difficult without significant extrapolation. It should be
noted that Warrant 3 is intended for sites that do not meet Warrant 1 and 2 but have
significant peaking during a single hour. Thus, Warrant 3 being met is a good indicator that
Warrant 1 and 2 will also likely be met.
Both Warrant 3 and 8 are volume based. Warrant 6 is based on promoting progressive
movement in a coordinated signal system. Given the number of signals and the AADT
volumes currently present the addition of a new signal would improve platooning and benefit
minor leg access. A warrant review report is included in Appendix H.
6.0 FINDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS
The project will have significant impacts on the transportation system. A key impact will be
the east -west connection between Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage provided by the
extension of Rose Crossing. The 2006 transportation plan recommends the extension of this
artery and provides a cursory analysis of potential impacts. The volumes in the Kalispell
Transportation Plan (Table 3-18 of the plan), indicate that ten percent or more of the current
traffic on Whitefish Stage would shift over to use Rose Crossing if built. Due to the broad
impacts of the extension as well the creation of new future access points trip assignment is
extremely complicated. MDT has a general policy not to use the travel demand models,
which are developed for local long range transportation plans, for traffic impact studies.
CTA Architects Engineers t,
Traffic Impact Study
f Nortti Town Center roject No.LHC # NTC
Without a regional travel demand model, the shift in traffic could not be estimated. For trip
assignment, a gravity model utilizing the "shortest path" was used to assign the trips
generated from the 9th Addition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It can be noted that
movements experience significant volume shift from Phase 1 to Phase 2 due to the
methodology and the addition of the new access points. Provided this evaluation of Phase 2
becomes overly subjective. It also creates a condition where improvements recommended
for Phase 1 may become irrelevant, inadequate, or erroneous when Phase 2 access points
are created. To address this, this report limits improvements analysis to Phase 1, the limit of
the requested entitlement, and recommends any future phase have a complete TIS done at
that time that can be better informed with count data from actual conditions after Rose
Crossing is built.
Reviewing Table 12 below shows that the following legs will fall below the Level of Service C.
Intersection
Leg
Time Period
LOS
Whitefish Stage &
Rose Crossing
AM
WB
D
Whitefish Stage &
Rose Crossing
PM
EB
F
Whitefish Stage &
Reserve
PM
EB
E
Whitefish Stage &
Reserve
PM
WB
D
Whitefish Stage &
Reserve
PM
NB
D
Whitefish Stage &
Reserve
PM
SB
D
Rose Crossing &
Highway 93
PM
SB
E
Table 92 - Failing Intersection Legs
Phase 1 — Recommended Improvements
Intersection of Highway 93 and Rose Crossing — Recommend installing full
movement signalized intersection.
a. WB — Two dedicated left -turn lanes, two dedicated right -turn lanes
b. SB — Two dedicated left -turn lanes, Single through lane
c. NB — Single through lane, Single through lane and combined right -turn
lane.
Intersection of Whitefish Stage and Reserve — Improved signalized intersection
with additional lanes.
a. EB- Dedicated left -turn lane, single through -lane, single through and right -
turn lane
b. WB - Dedicated left -turn lane, single through -lane, single through and
right -turn lane
c, SB — Dedicated left -turn lane, single through and right -turn lane
CTA Architects Engineers _�
Traffic Impact Study
KAIigpell North Town Center roject No LHC -r
d. NB - Dedicated left -turn lane, single through and right -turn lane
3. Intersection of Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage - Upgrade to a signalized
intersection.
a. EB - Dedicated left -turn lane, single through -lane, single right -turn lane
b. WB- Single through and right -turn lane, dedicated left -turn lane
c. SB - Single through and right -turn lane, dedicated left -turn lane
d. NB - Single through and right -turn lane, dedicated left -turn lane
If warrants cannot be met cursory analysis indicates a roundabout will provide
the required level of service.
A four way stop would also create an acceptable level of service but given the
classification of this road, and its importance to the transportation network, a four
way stop may not be acceptable to the area having jurisdiction.
Findings
1. Regardless of the development the intersection of Whitefish Stage and Reserve
will begin to have failing legs in the Base Year of 2021.
2. At full build -out with background growth the westbound left at Rose Crossing and
93 will fall below level of service C to D during the PM Peak.
3. This analysis considers full-buildout with background growth. Not all
improvements will be required for capacity immediately. Improvement phasing
should be considered to make sure they do not have a negative impact on the
system.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
This project will have significant impact on the surround transportation system by completing a
major east -west connector, additional trips, and installation additional signalization. These
improvements will also have dramatic impacts are the land use and development pattern in the
area. Of key importance will be the integration of these elements into the larger transportation
and land use plans.
With the recommend improvements all movements accept the left -turn out at Highway 93 and
Rose Crossing will function at a level of service C or better through the design year of 2021.
Give the model projects at that time the need for additional access points and traffic control will
become necessary. Those improvement should be evaluated at that time to produce the best
solution for the actual conditions.
CTA Architects Engineers _
Monfaim Department of howsportation
November 4, 2016
Jeff Claridge
1179 Stillwater Road
Kalispell, NIT 59901
Subject: Claridn Property A1212roachleview Request
Jeff, I wish to thank you for meeting with The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to
discuss the US 93 and Whitefish Stage Road Access proposal for the Claridge property subdivision.
We offer the following guidance based on out discussion of the conceptual plan presented to date:
1. MD'F requires a Traffic Impact Study (-HS) that considers all planned access to US 93 and
Whitefish Stage Road and uses for phase I and 2 of development. The TIS must consider
all permanent and interim improvements for the requested approaches.
2. The developer must propose an estimated traffic flow for Rose Crossing intersections with
US 93 and Whl'tefish Stage Road for use in the 'ITS.
3. MDT will allow a 1/4 turn approach to US 93 at the proposed Rose Crossing alignment
(middle access) with astop control for all phases of the development. MDT has determined
that a signal, temporary or permanent, at this location will not be allowect.
4. NIDT will allow a full movement approach to Whitefish Stage Road for. the proposed Rose
Crossing Arterial.
5. MDT will allow a signalized approach to US 93 at the proposed road Alpha location when
warranted and justified. The developer must recommend an interim design for the approach
until such time a signal is constructed.
6MDT will consider allowing a signalized approach to US 93 for the proposed Road Bravo
access when requested In future phases provided it is warranted and justified.
7. Once the review of the TIS is completed with MDT approvals, MDT will request an needed
geometric and construction plans for approaches including facility improvements.
S. please submit a hydraulic report to document the proposed design and residual effects the
project will have on the [Iighway system with respect to drainage. The hydraulic report will
need to include the following items.-
• A description of the location including: city, county, state highway route within or
adjacent to the development, mile marker and local streets.
• A description of the property 'including; area, ground cover, historic drainage patterns,
streams, drainage -ways, ditches, irrigation facilities, and culverts.
• A description of the project and the proposed drainage concept including; land use,
ground cover, drainage patterns, compliance with historical offske runoff restrictions,
detention storage, outlet design, and maintenance.
• A drainage map with topography, existing and proposed drainage facilities, delineated
drainage basins, flow patterns, highway right of way, and Facilities
• Runoff calculations for historical and proposed peak flow rates for the 2 and 100-year
events using the time of concentration to deternuine the intensity.
Program & Polity Analysis Bureau Rail Transit and Planning Division
Phone: (406) 444-3423 rry' (00) 335s-7592
Far: (406) M4-7671 Web Page: Kww.m&.state.mt.us
* Detention storage volume calculations required to limit the develop peak flows to the
historic peak flow for the 2 year event.
* Outlet structure design including orifice calculations to control the 2-year event.
0 Emergency overflow design to pass the 100-year event.
* The calculations should demonstrate that the developed peak flows do not exceed the
historical peak flows during the 2-year event. Additionally, the 100-year event should be
analyzed to determine how the water will pass through the system and what impact it will
have on roadway overtopping, flooding structures, etc.
a Available on request from MDT: A spreadsheet has been prepared to facilitate runoff
calculations. The MDT -Rational Spreadsheet may be used to perform runoff calculations
using the Rational Method.
9. Please submit approach applications complete with environmental checklists for each access
location to James Freyholm He can be reached at 406-751-2066. Considering the potential
size and scope of the proposed subdivision and the impacts it may have on the Kalispell
area, MDT may request additional environmental analysis including documentation of public
involvement as needed.
10. The developer inust provide copies of any State or Federal agency
I , permits required for this
development. At a minimum, MDT requires a copy of the letter verifying your Storm Water
Discharge Notice of Intent package has been submitted and is in order
We took forward to seeing your response to the comments provided above. I can coordinatc."ITIV
meeting needed with MDT and can be reached at 406-444-9416,
sinccrel\ "
N/ae "Tierney, Planner
Policy, Program, & Performance Analysis Bureau
Rail, Transit & planning Division
Copies: Ed Toays, P.E., Missoula District Adlydnistrator
Shane Stack, P.E., Engineering Services Supervisor
Danielle Bolan, P.E., MDT Traffic Safety Operations Engineer
James Freyholt7, P.E., Kalispell Area Traffic Engineer
Justin Juelfs, Kalispell Area Maintenance Chief
Dennis Oliver, .Kalispell Area Maintenance Superintendent
Stan Brelin, P.E., Traffic Safety Operations Unit Lead
Vicki Cmich, Missoula Area Statewide and Urban planner
Stephanie Ray, CTA, 121 South Main Street, Livingston, MT 59047
Tom jentz, City of Kalispell, 201 1st Ave E, Kalispell, m'r 59901
Montana ll T Department of Transportation kl�choeIboley. Director
MD7* 2701 Prospect Avenue Steve Bvffo"k, Goveiror
PO Box 20 11 001
Hel6rria MT59620- 1001
Januan, 10, 2017
1
Jeff Claridge
1179 StWwater Road
Kalispell, TLNIT 59901
Subject: Kalispd North Town Center (Clan dve Pronep-) US 93 Approach Review Request
(65.71 894.01)
Jeff, the i%-Iontana Department of Transportation (INID-f) has reviewed the latest TIS and addendum
prepared for the proposed Kalispell North Town Center.
We offer the following guidance based on our discussion of the conceptual plan presented to date-,
1. .fir this tinic'-%IDTis commenting on the original ial TIS submittal transmitted to the Cito�!
911 , of Kalispell
on 12-20-2016. I%fDT has also received the addendum for the proposed car lot. NIDT requires the
TIS revision to address the comments noted below and to include the car lot.
2. Page 9 — The'HS should provide ,I detail similar to Figure 4 showing anticipated land use changes
by phase- For example, which lot is proposed to be the "shoppuiig, center" proposed for Phase 2?
1�,�en is the Rose Crossing connection anticipated to occur?
Page 15, Figure 8: The trip distributions shown, when phase two is included, are showing a
significant decrease to the amount of egress left turns onto Hwy 93 from Rose Crossing; it seems
they are assuming the new access onto West Reserve would then take those movements. One
problem with this assumption is that West Reserve is already at capacity during peak hours so traffic
is going to tend to avoid West Reserve and use Hwy 93 until capacity (lanes) is added to West
Reserve. It would also seem that there will be cut through traffic corning from Whitefish Stage onto
Rose Crossing which is going to take the direct route -across to Hwy 93 to turn south. The TIS
should also take into account the fastest path (least delay) for trips entering, originating
within, in -transit through and exiting the development. This should be fully detailed and
explained in the report
4. Page 15, the last paragraph should say "Table 8" instead of "Table 7".
5. Page 19, Warrant Analysis section: We do not concur that traffic signal control is warranted and
justified for Phase I of this project. Specifically:
• 1N`arrant 3 does not ineet the requirement In the First paragraph under Section 4C.04 Warrant 3.
Peak Hour — Standard: as outlined in the NIUrCD for high occupancy facilities.
0 V`arranr 6 — MUF WOUld consider this to be ,I rural f 11 11161
1 al operating mostly in Isolati ) L
future fill in development occurs. A signal at Rose Cross . ing, would be a in -Ile from the closest
signal at the Vest Fcierve./B.vpas., lnterscctiofi and several nuiles to the -\IT M Junct.I.M.
Platoons (and the reiii1ring benefit tL) C.-Nisting tinttic tic signal control) would niu, tikelt- lie
dispersed at these
dro
2;)
• Warrant S — NIDT does not consider this warrant to be met at this time, however MDT will
consider the following for Phase I (including the proposed car lot on Lot 5):
• To move forward with the car lot MDT will consider one full movement access at Rose
Crossing with two way stop control. Future traffic signal control will be considered
when warranted and justified. Future approaches, as previously discussed, will be
considered as future development occurs.
6. Page 20, Recommended Improvements section.
• Ia. — indicates having two dedicated right -ruin lanes for egress at Rose Crossing; there should
only be one right -turn lane
• l b. — for southbound Hwy. 93 it indicates two dedicated left -turn lanes and only one thru lane;
this needs to be switched (two thru, one left)
• The recommended improvements for Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing are to have three
separate lanes entering from each leg; this may require additional right of ways from other
landowners. Has this been fully considered?
• The TIS implies that the developer will do recommended improvements at Whitefish Stage and
West Reserve. The developer must clarify its, plan for acquiring the necessary° right of way to
add the proposed lanes.
Highway capacity sheets for the access at US 93 and Rose Crossing, for example, show three
"design" milestones labelled. `Base Conditions", "Base + phase I", `Base + Phase I and 2
Condition". Our understanding is that "Base Conditions" as stated in the TIS are what exists today
and therefore no approach would be there. This should be clarified.
I3. Once the review of the TIS is completed with NIDT approvals, MDT will request all needed
geometric and construction plans for approaches including facility improvements for the proposed
phases.
9, NNIDT will also require a hydrauhc report to document the proposed design and residual effects the
project will have on the highway system with respect to drainage. The hydraulic report will need to
include the following items:
+ A description of the location including: city-, county, state highway- route within or adjacent to
the development, mile marker and local smrcets.
• A description of the property including; area, ground cover, historic drainage patterns, streams,
drainage- vat's, ditches, urit;ation facilities, and culverts.
• _1 description of the project and the proposed drainage coziccpt including. land use, ground
cover; drainage patterns, compliance with historical offsite runoff restrictions, detention storat7c-,
outlet design, and maintenance.
• A drainage zaaap with topergralala<<, existiri and proposed drainage facilities, delineated drunage
la zs :ris, flow patterns, highway right of tvae, and facilities
• RltraoffcalcubtiOns for histortcal and proposed peak llrw rates for the _' and 100-vcar events
using the tulle Of to determine the: intensitc.
0 Detention storage volume calculations required to limit the develop peak flows to the historic
peak flow for the 2 year event.
• Outlet structure design including orifice calculations to control the 2-}-ear event.
• Emergency overflow design to pass the I 00-year event.
'11e calculations should demonstrate that the developed peak flows do not exceed the historical
peak flows during the 2-year event. Additionally, the 100-year event should be analyzed to
determine how the water will pass through the system and what impact it will have on roadway
overtopping, flooding structures, etc.
Available on request from NIDT: A spreadsheet has been prepared to facilitate runoff
calculations. The MIDT-Rational Spreadsheet may be used to perforni runoff calculations using
the Rational Method.
10. Please submit approach applications complete with environmental checklists for each access location
to James Freyholtz. He can be reached at 406-751-2060. Corisidernilg the potential size and scope
of the proposed subdivision and the impacts it may have on the Kalispell area, INIDT may request
additional environmental analysis including documentation of public involvement as needed.
1. 11-ic developer must provide copies of any State or Federal agency permits required for this
developmentAta mmiinnum, MD"Frequires a copy of the letter venift-im! your Storm Water
Discharge Notice of Intent package has been submitted and is in order.
We look for -ward to seeing your response to the comments provided above. I can coordinate any meeting
needed with INIDT and can be reached at 406-444- 9416.
,Sincerely,
like Tiern q.-, Planner
policv, Program, & Performance Analysis Bureau
Rail, Transit & Planning Division
Copies: EdToays, P.E., Missoula District Administrator
Shane Stack, P.E., Engineering Services Supervisor
zn�
Danielle Bolan, MDT Traffic Safety Operations Engineer
James Frevh,-.)Itz, P.E., Kalispell :1rca Traffic Fngineer
Justin * juelfi-s, Kalispell Area Maintenance Chief
Dennis Oliver, Kalispell .Area Maintenance Superintendcnt
Traffic Safety Operation., 11 iLead
Stain Brelin, P.E., IIIt
Vicki C-rnich,'Nlissoula Area Statewide and Urban pl.inner
Stephanie Ray, CTA, 12 1 South Main Street, Livingston, XIT 590-471
CIty of Kalispell, 201 1st Ave E, Kalispell, im-r 59901
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS
SIEVE BULLOCK
GOVERNOR
ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER
1956 NIT MAIO STREET
STATE OF M ONTANA
OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL
MAJOR GENERAL MAT -THEW T. QUINN
(406) 324-3010 - FAX (406) 324.4800
January 04, 2017
Planning Department
201 154 Avenue East
Kalispell MT 59901
PO BOX 4789
FORT HARRISON, MONTANA 59636-4789
Subject: File # KPP-16-03, tract of land within the Glacier Town Center Planned Unit Development — first phase of
development.
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the potential future zoning of this property. As the Master Planner
for the Montana Department of Military Affairs, it is imperative that I am able to work with communities like
yours to ensure compatible use for both sides so this is greatly appreciated.
The Montana Army National Guard owns and operates the facility adjacent to the property on the North-West
corner of the proposed development. Our Armory is generally low usage during the work week when it is
occupied by 3-5 full-time personnel. However, during drill weekends (generally Friday through Sunday) and a
fifteen day annual training period, this number can balloon up to in excess of 200 personnel conducting training
up to twenty-four hours a day. Some of the events will occur outdoors, including physical training, formations,
marching, vehicle operation and common task training, all of which can have an effect on neighbors.
We also have a maintenance shop located on the same site and the vehicles stored and worked on there will
contribute to the overall noise of the site. This facility is generally occupied by up to 10 personnel on a full time
basis.
The proposed zoning for this tract of land would be a good fit for our operation. By having the light industrial /
commercial usage in the corner of the property adjacent to us, the owners will be creating the right conditions to
ensure that neither their purchasers nor the Montana Army National Guard has any conflicts. The "buffer" that
this zoning creates will be beneficial to both sides.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Rick Lamach
Master Planner
MTARNG
Construction and Facilities Management Office
-AN EQUAL OPPORTUMIiYEMPLOYER-