+ All Categories
Home > Documents > From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison...

From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison...

Date post: 10-Oct-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 5 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
80
From: Daniel Sabolsky To: Elizabeth Roos Subject: FW: West Yellowstone Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 1:34:25 PM Attachments: Yeakey Letter.pdf FYI From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 2:14 PM To: 'Robert Yeakey' <[email protected]> Cc: Daniel Sabolsky <[email protected]> Subject: West Yellowstone Attached is the Town’s letter requesting additional information regarding your project in West Yellowstone. As the Town has requested on numerous occasions (Planning Board and Council meetings), your engineer needs to develop a dialogue with the Town’s engineer in order to get a clear understanding of your submittal. The only communication between the two engineers was initiated by the Town’s engineer. The Town’s request was drafted without some of the clarifications needed by our engineer to ask specific and detailed questions. Please encourage your engineer to compile with the Town’s request. Daniel Sabolsky Town Manager West Yellowstone, MT (406) 640-1472
Transcript
Page 1: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

From Daniel SabolskyTo Elizabeth RoosSubject FW West YellowstoneDate Friday May 3 2019 13425 PMAttachments Yeakey Letterpdf

FYI

From Daniel Sabolsky Sent Tuesday April 02 2019 214 PMTo Robert Yeakey ltrobyeakeynetgtCc Daniel Sabolsky ltdsabolskytownofwestyellowstonecomgtSubject West Yellowstone Attached is the Townrsquos letter requesting additional information regarding your project in WestYellowstone As the Town has requested on numerous occasions (Planning Board and Councilmeetings) your engineer needs to develop a dialogue with the Townrsquos engineer in order to get aclear understanding of your submittal The only communication between the two engineers wasinitiated by the Townrsquos engineer The Townrsquos request was drafted without some of the clarificationsneeded by our engineer to ask specific and detailed questions Please encourage your engineer tocompile with the Townrsquos request Daniel SabolskyTown ManagerWest Yellowstone MT(406) 640-1472

1

Scott L Hochstrasser IPA Inc E-Mail slh1ipaaolcom 141 Bolinas Road Fairfax CA 94930 USA Tele (415)459-6224 Cell 415-572-2777 April 30 2019 Sent Via Email 440 pm PST Mr Daniel Sabolsky Town Manager Town of West Yellowstone 440 Yellowstone Avenue West Yellowstone MT 59758 RE Moonrise Meadows Subdivision ndash Response to April 1 2019 Letter Dear Mr Sabolsky My office has been retained to assist Mr Rob Yeakey project manager and owner of property known as ldquoMoonrise Meadows My firm IPA Inc is a private land use and environmental planning consulting firm assisting various clients with planning and zoning entitlements for over 30 years I have become familiar with the Towns administrative record regarding the Moonrise Meadows PUD pending applications for a conditional use permit and preliminary subdivision plat In your letter of April 1 2019 addressed to Mr Yeakey you provide a summary list of information being requested by the Town Council at their March 5 2019 public hearing Your letter notes the need for the additional information being requesting to clarify and amplify facts of the project to address outstanding issues First I think it is important to provide some historic information not yet requested by the Council and generally not disclosed in the public record to-date that I think should be clear to Town public decision makers and staff Fact the lands in question (Track 1 and Lots 1 and 2 ndash Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the lsquoMadison Addition Master Planrdquo approved by the Town In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the Madison Addition property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today For example the record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental

2

Quality) March 1983 the Town granted a preliminary approval of a 46 lot residential subdivision Said subdivision ldquoMadison Additionrdquo plat identified the Moonrise Meadow parcel (Tract 1) as a ldquoPUD Tractrdquo with a development density of 225 dwelling units The plan before the Council (Moonrise Meadows PUD) proposes 180 dwelling units 45 fewer units or a 20 voluntary density reduction Not even in the ldquo2017 West Yellowstone Growth Policy Updaterdquo is there discussion of reducing density In fact the ldquoPolicyrdquo encourages more housing not less Secondly this letter is intended to provide a comprehensive and complete response to your request for additional information The responses are provided in the exact order as they were listed in your April 1 2019 letter I believe you will find herein and in the attached Exhibits substantial additional information that responds to the outstanding issues and provides ample evidence and facts to support project findings leading to Council approval of the project LANDSCAPING ndash Town Code Section 1734060(I) Per your letter the Council identified two issues related to the project landscape plan

Issue 1 Response Although the plan shows open space easements separating the proposed condominium R-4 Moonrise Meadows development from adjacent R-1 R-2 and R-3 there is concern that a significant vegetation reduction in these areas may be necessary for future snow storage and storm water retention

Finding of Fact 1

To address this issue the proposed plat map has been amended aggregation Lots 1 amp 2 and relocation of Retention Pond 2 (See Exhibit B Attached ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 This minor plan change will preserve the existing tree areas separating the Moonrise Meadows condominium project from the existing surrounding single family residential development The Retention Pond 2 relocation is in close proximity to the existing storm water collection system and in a landscape area where tree cover is less dense Relocation of the Retention Pond 2 adds a water feature in the planned 100 ft buffer initially propose limits the tree removal to a known area and will provide screening of views of the proposed buildings in to the site and mitigate potential significant noise impacts Issue 2 Response The proposed project provides significant buffers fact is the nearest single family residence would be 100 feet away from the nearest new building which is apparently an acceptable distance established in other areas in the Town A complete landscape plan specifying the preservation of native trees density and plant types of landscaping fencing private landscape furniture and other buffering along the eastern and southern property boundaries is provided herewith (See Exhibit B1 Attached Moonrise Meadow Landscape Plan prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019) The new landscape plan specifically calls out in ldquoTree Notesrdquo the compliance with Wildland and Urban Interface building code standards and efforts to preserve as many of the existing trees as is possible

3

outside of the construction limits INGRESSEGRESS ndash ldquoA minimum of two accesses are required for emergency servicerdquo Chapter 5 of the 2017 Growth Policy focuses on the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) issues related to fire hazard severity The ldquoPolicyrdquo acknowledges the potential fire danger within the Town where residential development is surrounded by dense lodge pole pine and landscape vegetation with little or no defensible space throughout the neighborhoods Goal 14 and the associated objectives in the ldquoPolicyrdquo provide the primary steps the Town intends to take to address the fire hazard issues related to the WUI areas including adoption of guidelines and regulations for fire protection and defensible space One can only speculate because said guidelines and regulations have not yet been developed or implemented that the Town intends to require a minimum of two accesses for fire and emergency service access for future residential developments However without the specific guidelines and regulations in place requiring a second ingressegress the Townrsquos review of the project impacts must simply focus on applicable current promulgated subdivision statues rules and regulations The Moonrise Meadows application includes a fire hazard analysis prepared by Coffman Engineers The analysis considers currently promulgated and applicable guidelines codes and regulations that apply to the development including ldquofire department accessrdquo During the public review the Town Planning Advisory Board members public and the Council expressed that only having one access to the subdivision is a safety concern Based on the stated public and Council concern and without any specific regulation requiring a second access in the Town code the applicant proposed two new options for access Option 1 includes two accesses one aligned with Grayling Avenue and one aligned with Cascade Avenue Both roads would be 28 feet wide one ndashway streets with two lanes This option allows two way vehicle circulation in case of an emergency vehicles in the subdivision can exist on one two lane 28 foot wide road and fire service vehicles can enter on another two lane 28 foot wide and separated roadway Regarding Planning Advisory Board Condition of Approval 10 as I understand the administrative record the PAB was aware as the Council should be that the WYSR standards adopted in 1982 do not explicitly require more than one access Fire Code Section D106 1 allows for exceptions to having two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads when all buildings including non-residential occupancies are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems The proposed 180 unit project includes sprinklers in all buildings Additionally the project sponsor has chosen to implement key mitigation measures by design to address fire safety issues The plan includes fire resistant exterior building construction landscape improvements to provide a minimum of 30 foot defensible space around buildings fire fighting water supply (hydrants with water flow) rendering the fire hazard severity on the low end of the spectrum as defined by the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code Secondly there are no new specific ingressegress standards requiring a minimum of two accesses in the Town code Accordingly the project plan addresses the public and decision makers concerns for a second access in good faith and has provided Option 1 roadway configuration Not only is the project plan consistent with all of the policies contained in the Towns 2017 Growth Policy Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision regulations the Council must find based on evidence in the record

4

approval of the plan because the project will not have any significant adverse fire safety impacts on public health and safety that would result from the project build-out Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo

Access Recommendations and Conclusions- Morrison Maierle

The project sponsor agrees to construct the recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development - Option 1 - with modifications as noted on page 7 and 8 of the Exhibit C report Finding of Fact 1 The study of the ingressegress analysis prepared by MM concludes that Option 1 does in fact provide a minimum of two access points Source Exhibit C Page 8 ldquoWith the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other eventrdquo Finding of Fact 2 The Madison Addition record is replete with evidence to show that back in 1982 the developer and the Town entered in to a Development Agreement (DA) that agreement created some very site specific standards for roads in the subdivision which were built out and currently exist Page 2 of that DA 3 makes it clear that all streets shall be constructed and installed in accordance with any applicable subdivision statutes rules andor regulations Source (Development Agreement - made 9th day of December 1982 - recorded- Film 73 page1337) The Council noted in their discussion that the proposed Option 1 would require use of property outside the boundary of Tract 1 and shown on the preliminary plat ie Lots 1 and 2 of the Madison Addition The Council raised concerns about the proposed use of the lots as potentially restricted under the governing covenants The situation is not directly addressed within the verbiage of the CCampRrsquoS This document is comprehensive in its intent and scope with many places to address this issue if the need was felt to do so If it was a concern a reasonable person could conclude that it would have been included in this document The definition of a PUD is contained in Section 137 and Section 17 Planned Unit Development 171 spells out the Intent- ldquoto encourage better land userdquo by ldquorelaxing the strict mechanical regulations of these covenantsrdquo all to accommodate preferred unit development In fact it goes so far as to allow for increase in density where land area is used for things like swimming pools Exceptions made to Section 1 Definitions are spelt out in

5

172 including ldquodevelopment and location of streets and utilitiesrdquo and Item 2 specifically allows for Common Open Space to ldquocontain complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of occupants of the developmentrdquo Finding of Fact 3 The use of Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements reduces single family residential density by two dwellings adds Open Space reduces overall traffic in the subdivision and avoids development of two new driveway cuts at a roadway intersection Grayling Ave CCampRrsquoS throughout address health and safety issues including parking congestion hazardous driving conditions adequate access for firefighting including the layout and number of fire hydrants and fire walkways This document requires infrastructure to be built to standards required by the Town of West Yellowstone It is reasonable and certainly in the interest of the public health and safety to conclude that in a situation where the Town is requiring a second emergency access for health and safety in and out of the development the Moonrise Meadows PUD development Option 1 road access using Lots 1 and 2 is specifically preferred by the CCampRrsquos The Option 1 road meets the promulgated fire code requirements of the Town and satisfies the desire of public and the Town Council for two roadway access points Dedicating Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements and open space reduces density that the CCampRrsquoS would in fact encourage rather than prohibit Finally use of Lots 1 and 2 improves health and safety for the benefit and enjoyment of all occupants of the subdivision Finding of Fact 4 The aggregation of Lots 1 amp 2 into Tract 1 is allowed without governing approval under the adopted Subdivision Regulations In Section II Procedures item 19 Correcting or Amending Filed Final Plats (b) states (The relocation of common boundaries and the aggregation of lots within platted subdivisions where five or fewer of the original lots are affected within a platted subdivision filed with the county clerk and recorder are exempt from approval as subdivision An Amended Plat must be prepared following the requirements of the Montana Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 22-24b (30) S4100 except that in place of the governing bodyrsquos approval the landowner certifies that the approval of the governing body is not required pursuant to 76-3-207 (1) Finding of Fact 5 Section III Design and Improvement Standards of the Subdivision Regulations 7 Streets and Roads have been met by the project road design planned in Option 1 7 Streets and Roads (c1a) Streets shall intersect at right angles except when topography precludes and in no case shall the intersection be less than sixty (60) degrees (c 1b) two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point or their centerlines shall be offset at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet (c1b) Intersection design shall provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways Note The existing roads in the Madison Addition have an operating design speed of 20 miles per hour per Table II of the Design Standards Additionally the Option 1 plan provides roadway meeting point standards in c1b and provides 2 stop signs for vehicles exiting the

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 2: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

1

Scott L Hochstrasser IPA Inc E-Mail slh1ipaaolcom 141 Bolinas Road Fairfax CA 94930 USA Tele (415)459-6224 Cell 415-572-2777 April 30 2019 Sent Via Email 440 pm PST Mr Daniel Sabolsky Town Manager Town of West Yellowstone 440 Yellowstone Avenue West Yellowstone MT 59758 RE Moonrise Meadows Subdivision ndash Response to April 1 2019 Letter Dear Mr Sabolsky My office has been retained to assist Mr Rob Yeakey project manager and owner of property known as ldquoMoonrise Meadows My firm IPA Inc is a private land use and environmental planning consulting firm assisting various clients with planning and zoning entitlements for over 30 years I have become familiar with the Towns administrative record regarding the Moonrise Meadows PUD pending applications for a conditional use permit and preliminary subdivision plat In your letter of April 1 2019 addressed to Mr Yeakey you provide a summary list of information being requested by the Town Council at their March 5 2019 public hearing Your letter notes the need for the additional information being requesting to clarify and amplify facts of the project to address outstanding issues First I think it is important to provide some historic information not yet requested by the Council and generally not disclosed in the public record to-date that I think should be clear to Town public decision makers and staff Fact the lands in question (Track 1 and Lots 1 and 2 ndash Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the lsquoMadison Addition Master Planrdquo approved by the Town In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the Madison Addition property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today For example the record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental

2

Quality) March 1983 the Town granted a preliminary approval of a 46 lot residential subdivision Said subdivision ldquoMadison Additionrdquo plat identified the Moonrise Meadow parcel (Tract 1) as a ldquoPUD Tractrdquo with a development density of 225 dwelling units The plan before the Council (Moonrise Meadows PUD) proposes 180 dwelling units 45 fewer units or a 20 voluntary density reduction Not even in the ldquo2017 West Yellowstone Growth Policy Updaterdquo is there discussion of reducing density In fact the ldquoPolicyrdquo encourages more housing not less Secondly this letter is intended to provide a comprehensive and complete response to your request for additional information The responses are provided in the exact order as they were listed in your April 1 2019 letter I believe you will find herein and in the attached Exhibits substantial additional information that responds to the outstanding issues and provides ample evidence and facts to support project findings leading to Council approval of the project LANDSCAPING ndash Town Code Section 1734060(I) Per your letter the Council identified two issues related to the project landscape plan

Issue 1 Response Although the plan shows open space easements separating the proposed condominium R-4 Moonrise Meadows development from adjacent R-1 R-2 and R-3 there is concern that a significant vegetation reduction in these areas may be necessary for future snow storage and storm water retention

Finding of Fact 1

To address this issue the proposed plat map has been amended aggregation Lots 1 amp 2 and relocation of Retention Pond 2 (See Exhibit B Attached ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 This minor plan change will preserve the existing tree areas separating the Moonrise Meadows condominium project from the existing surrounding single family residential development The Retention Pond 2 relocation is in close proximity to the existing storm water collection system and in a landscape area where tree cover is less dense Relocation of the Retention Pond 2 adds a water feature in the planned 100 ft buffer initially propose limits the tree removal to a known area and will provide screening of views of the proposed buildings in to the site and mitigate potential significant noise impacts Issue 2 Response The proposed project provides significant buffers fact is the nearest single family residence would be 100 feet away from the nearest new building which is apparently an acceptable distance established in other areas in the Town A complete landscape plan specifying the preservation of native trees density and plant types of landscaping fencing private landscape furniture and other buffering along the eastern and southern property boundaries is provided herewith (See Exhibit B1 Attached Moonrise Meadow Landscape Plan prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019) The new landscape plan specifically calls out in ldquoTree Notesrdquo the compliance with Wildland and Urban Interface building code standards and efforts to preserve as many of the existing trees as is possible

3

outside of the construction limits INGRESSEGRESS ndash ldquoA minimum of two accesses are required for emergency servicerdquo Chapter 5 of the 2017 Growth Policy focuses on the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) issues related to fire hazard severity The ldquoPolicyrdquo acknowledges the potential fire danger within the Town where residential development is surrounded by dense lodge pole pine and landscape vegetation with little or no defensible space throughout the neighborhoods Goal 14 and the associated objectives in the ldquoPolicyrdquo provide the primary steps the Town intends to take to address the fire hazard issues related to the WUI areas including adoption of guidelines and regulations for fire protection and defensible space One can only speculate because said guidelines and regulations have not yet been developed or implemented that the Town intends to require a minimum of two accesses for fire and emergency service access for future residential developments However without the specific guidelines and regulations in place requiring a second ingressegress the Townrsquos review of the project impacts must simply focus on applicable current promulgated subdivision statues rules and regulations The Moonrise Meadows application includes a fire hazard analysis prepared by Coffman Engineers The analysis considers currently promulgated and applicable guidelines codes and regulations that apply to the development including ldquofire department accessrdquo During the public review the Town Planning Advisory Board members public and the Council expressed that only having one access to the subdivision is a safety concern Based on the stated public and Council concern and without any specific regulation requiring a second access in the Town code the applicant proposed two new options for access Option 1 includes two accesses one aligned with Grayling Avenue and one aligned with Cascade Avenue Both roads would be 28 feet wide one ndashway streets with two lanes This option allows two way vehicle circulation in case of an emergency vehicles in the subdivision can exist on one two lane 28 foot wide road and fire service vehicles can enter on another two lane 28 foot wide and separated roadway Regarding Planning Advisory Board Condition of Approval 10 as I understand the administrative record the PAB was aware as the Council should be that the WYSR standards adopted in 1982 do not explicitly require more than one access Fire Code Section D106 1 allows for exceptions to having two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads when all buildings including non-residential occupancies are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems The proposed 180 unit project includes sprinklers in all buildings Additionally the project sponsor has chosen to implement key mitigation measures by design to address fire safety issues The plan includes fire resistant exterior building construction landscape improvements to provide a minimum of 30 foot defensible space around buildings fire fighting water supply (hydrants with water flow) rendering the fire hazard severity on the low end of the spectrum as defined by the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code Secondly there are no new specific ingressegress standards requiring a minimum of two accesses in the Town code Accordingly the project plan addresses the public and decision makers concerns for a second access in good faith and has provided Option 1 roadway configuration Not only is the project plan consistent with all of the policies contained in the Towns 2017 Growth Policy Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision regulations the Council must find based on evidence in the record

4

approval of the plan because the project will not have any significant adverse fire safety impacts on public health and safety that would result from the project build-out Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo

Access Recommendations and Conclusions- Morrison Maierle

The project sponsor agrees to construct the recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development - Option 1 - with modifications as noted on page 7 and 8 of the Exhibit C report Finding of Fact 1 The study of the ingressegress analysis prepared by MM concludes that Option 1 does in fact provide a minimum of two access points Source Exhibit C Page 8 ldquoWith the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other eventrdquo Finding of Fact 2 The Madison Addition record is replete with evidence to show that back in 1982 the developer and the Town entered in to a Development Agreement (DA) that agreement created some very site specific standards for roads in the subdivision which were built out and currently exist Page 2 of that DA 3 makes it clear that all streets shall be constructed and installed in accordance with any applicable subdivision statutes rules andor regulations Source (Development Agreement - made 9th day of December 1982 - recorded- Film 73 page1337) The Council noted in their discussion that the proposed Option 1 would require use of property outside the boundary of Tract 1 and shown on the preliminary plat ie Lots 1 and 2 of the Madison Addition The Council raised concerns about the proposed use of the lots as potentially restricted under the governing covenants The situation is not directly addressed within the verbiage of the CCampRrsquoS This document is comprehensive in its intent and scope with many places to address this issue if the need was felt to do so If it was a concern a reasonable person could conclude that it would have been included in this document The definition of a PUD is contained in Section 137 and Section 17 Planned Unit Development 171 spells out the Intent- ldquoto encourage better land userdquo by ldquorelaxing the strict mechanical regulations of these covenantsrdquo all to accommodate preferred unit development In fact it goes so far as to allow for increase in density where land area is used for things like swimming pools Exceptions made to Section 1 Definitions are spelt out in

5

172 including ldquodevelopment and location of streets and utilitiesrdquo and Item 2 specifically allows for Common Open Space to ldquocontain complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of occupants of the developmentrdquo Finding of Fact 3 The use of Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements reduces single family residential density by two dwellings adds Open Space reduces overall traffic in the subdivision and avoids development of two new driveway cuts at a roadway intersection Grayling Ave CCampRrsquoS throughout address health and safety issues including parking congestion hazardous driving conditions adequate access for firefighting including the layout and number of fire hydrants and fire walkways This document requires infrastructure to be built to standards required by the Town of West Yellowstone It is reasonable and certainly in the interest of the public health and safety to conclude that in a situation where the Town is requiring a second emergency access for health and safety in and out of the development the Moonrise Meadows PUD development Option 1 road access using Lots 1 and 2 is specifically preferred by the CCampRrsquos The Option 1 road meets the promulgated fire code requirements of the Town and satisfies the desire of public and the Town Council for two roadway access points Dedicating Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements and open space reduces density that the CCampRrsquoS would in fact encourage rather than prohibit Finally use of Lots 1 and 2 improves health and safety for the benefit and enjoyment of all occupants of the subdivision Finding of Fact 4 The aggregation of Lots 1 amp 2 into Tract 1 is allowed without governing approval under the adopted Subdivision Regulations In Section II Procedures item 19 Correcting or Amending Filed Final Plats (b) states (The relocation of common boundaries and the aggregation of lots within platted subdivisions where five or fewer of the original lots are affected within a platted subdivision filed with the county clerk and recorder are exempt from approval as subdivision An Amended Plat must be prepared following the requirements of the Montana Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 22-24b (30) S4100 except that in place of the governing bodyrsquos approval the landowner certifies that the approval of the governing body is not required pursuant to 76-3-207 (1) Finding of Fact 5 Section III Design and Improvement Standards of the Subdivision Regulations 7 Streets and Roads have been met by the project road design planned in Option 1 7 Streets and Roads (c1a) Streets shall intersect at right angles except when topography precludes and in no case shall the intersection be less than sixty (60) degrees (c 1b) two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point or their centerlines shall be offset at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet (c1b) Intersection design shall provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways Note The existing roads in the Madison Addition have an operating design speed of 20 miles per hour per Table II of the Design Standards Additionally the Option 1 plan provides roadway meeting point standards in c1b and provides 2 stop signs for vehicles exiting the

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 3: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

2

Quality) March 1983 the Town granted a preliminary approval of a 46 lot residential subdivision Said subdivision ldquoMadison Additionrdquo plat identified the Moonrise Meadow parcel (Tract 1) as a ldquoPUD Tractrdquo with a development density of 225 dwelling units The plan before the Council (Moonrise Meadows PUD) proposes 180 dwelling units 45 fewer units or a 20 voluntary density reduction Not even in the ldquo2017 West Yellowstone Growth Policy Updaterdquo is there discussion of reducing density In fact the ldquoPolicyrdquo encourages more housing not less Secondly this letter is intended to provide a comprehensive and complete response to your request for additional information The responses are provided in the exact order as they were listed in your April 1 2019 letter I believe you will find herein and in the attached Exhibits substantial additional information that responds to the outstanding issues and provides ample evidence and facts to support project findings leading to Council approval of the project LANDSCAPING ndash Town Code Section 1734060(I) Per your letter the Council identified two issues related to the project landscape plan

Issue 1 Response Although the plan shows open space easements separating the proposed condominium R-4 Moonrise Meadows development from adjacent R-1 R-2 and R-3 there is concern that a significant vegetation reduction in these areas may be necessary for future snow storage and storm water retention

Finding of Fact 1

To address this issue the proposed plat map has been amended aggregation Lots 1 amp 2 and relocation of Retention Pond 2 (See Exhibit B Attached ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 This minor plan change will preserve the existing tree areas separating the Moonrise Meadows condominium project from the existing surrounding single family residential development The Retention Pond 2 relocation is in close proximity to the existing storm water collection system and in a landscape area where tree cover is less dense Relocation of the Retention Pond 2 adds a water feature in the planned 100 ft buffer initially propose limits the tree removal to a known area and will provide screening of views of the proposed buildings in to the site and mitigate potential significant noise impacts Issue 2 Response The proposed project provides significant buffers fact is the nearest single family residence would be 100 feet away from the nearest new building which is apparently an acceptable distance established in other areas in the Town A complete landscape plan specifying the preservation of native trees density and plant types of landscaping fencing private landscape furniture and other buffering along the eastern and southern property boundaries is provided herewith (See Exhibit B1 Attached Moonrise Meadow Landscape Plan prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019) The new landscape plan specifically calls out in ldquoTree Notesrdquo the compliance with Wildland and Urban Interface building code standards and efforts to preserve as many of the existing trees as is possible

3

outside of the construction limits INGRESSEGRESS ndash ldquoA minimum of two accesses are required for emergency servicerdquo Chapter 5 of the 2017 Growth Policy focuses on the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) issues related to fire hazard severity The ldquoPolicyrdquo acknowledges the potential fire danger within the Town where residential development is surrounded by dense lodge pole pine and landscape vegetation with little or no defensible space throughout the neighborhoods Goal 14 and the associated objectives in the ldquoPolicyrdquo provide the primary steps the Town intends to take to address the fire hazard issues related to the WUI areas including adoption of guidelines and regulations for fire protection and defensible space One can only speculate because said guidelines and regulations have not yet been developed or implemented that the Town intends to require a minimum of two accesses for fire and emergency service access for future residential developments However without the specific guidelines and regulations in place requiring a second ingressegress the Townrsquos review of the project impacts must simply focus on applicable current promulgated subdivision statues rules and regulations The Moonrise Meadows application includes a fire hazard analysis prepared by Coffman Engineers The analysis considers currently promulgated and applicable guidelines codes and regulations that apply to the development including ldquofire department accessrdquo During the public review the Town Planning Advisory Board members public and the Council expressed that only having one access to the subdivision is a safety concern Based on the stated public and Council concern and without any specific regulation requiring a second access in the Town code the applicant proposed two new options for access Option 1 includes two accesses one aligned with Grayling Avenue and one aligned with Cascade Avenue Both roads would be 28 feet wide one ndashway streets with two lanes This option allows two way vehicle circulation in case of an emergency vehicles in the subdivision can exist on one two lane 28 foot wide road and fire service vehicles can enter on another two lane 28 foot wide and separated roadway Regarding Planning Advisory Board Condition of Approval 10 as I understand the administrative record the PAB was aware as the Council should be that the WYSR standards adopted in 1982 do not explicitly require more than one access Fire Code Section D106 1 allows for exceptions to having two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads when all buildings including non-residential occupancies are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems The proposed 180 unit project includes sprinklers in all buildings Additionally the project sponsor has chosen to implement key mitigation measures by design to address fire safety issues The plan includes fire resistant exterior building construction landscape improvements to provide a minimum of 30 foot defensible space around buildings fire fighting water supply (hydrants with water flow) rendering the fire hazard severity on the low end of the spectrum as defined by the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code Secondly there are no new specific ingressegress standards requiring a minimum of two accesses in the Town code Accordingly the project plan addresses the public and decision makers concerns for a second access in good faith and has provided Option 1 roadway configuration Not only is the project plan consistent with all of the policies contained in the Towns 2017 Growth Policy Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision regulations the Council must find based on evidence in the record

4

approval of the plan because the project will not have any significant adverse fire safety impacts on public health and safety that would result from the project build-out Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo

Access Recommendations and Conclusions- Morrison Maierle

The project sponsor agrees to construct the recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development - Option 1 - with modifications as noted on page 7 and 8 of the Exhibit C report Finding of Fact 1 The study of the ingressegress analysis prepared by MM concludes that Option 1 does in fact provide a minimum of two access points Source Exhibit C Page 8 ldquoWith the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other eventrdquo Finding of Fact 2 The Madison Addition record is replete with evidence to show that back in 1982 the developer and the Town entered in to a Development Agreement (DA) that agreement created some very site specific standards for roads in the subdivision which were built out and currently exist Page 2 of that DA 3 makes it clear that all streets shall be constructed and installed in accordance with any applicable subdivision statutes rules andor regulations Source (Development Agreement - made 9th day of December 1982 - recorded- Film 73 page1337) The Council noted in their discussion that the proposed Option 1 would require use of property outside the boundary of Tract 1 and shown on the preliminary plat ie Lots 1 and 2 of the Madison Addition The Council raised concerns about the proposed use of the lots as potentially restricted under the governing covenants The situation is not directly addressed within the verbiage of the CCampRrsquoS This document is comprehensive in its intent and scope with many places to address this issue if the need was felt to do so If it was a concern a reasonable person could conclude that it would have been included in this document The definition of a PUD is contained in Section 137 and Section 17 Planned Unit Development 171 spells out the Intent- ldquoto encourage better land userdquo by ldquorelaxing the strict mechanical regulations of these covenantsrdquo all to accommodate preferred unit development In fact it goes so far as to allow for increase in density where land area is used for things like swimming pools Exceptions made to Section 1 Definitions are spelt out in

5

172 including ldquodevelopment and location of streets and utilitiesrdquo and Item 2 specifically allows for Common Open Space to ldquocontain complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of occupants of the developmentrdquo Finding of Fact 3 The use of Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements reduces single family residential density by two dwellings adds Open Space reduces overall traffic in the subdivision and avoids development of two new driveway cuts at a roadway intersection Grayling Ave CCampRrsquoS throughout address health and safety issues including parking congestion hazardous driving conditions adequate access for firefighting including the layout and number of fire hydrants and fire walkways This document requires infrastructure to be built to standards required by the Town of West Yellowstone It is reasonable and certainly in the interest of the public health and safety to conclude that in a situation where the Town is requiring a second emergency access for health and safety in and out of the development the Moonrise Meadows PUD development Option 1 road access using Lots 1 and 2 is specifically preferred by the CCampRrsquos The Option 1 road meets the promulgated fire code requirements of the Town and satisfies the desire of public and the Town Council for two roadway access points Dedicating Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements and open space reduces density that the CCampRrsquoS would in fact encourage rather than prohibit Finally use of Lots 1 and 2 improves health and safety for the benefit and enjoyment of all occupants of the subdivision Finding of Fact 4 The aggregation of Lots 1 amp 2 into Tract 1 is allowed without governing approval under the adopted Subdivision Regulations In Section II Procedures item 19 Correcting or Amending Filed Final Plats (b) states (The relocation of common boundaries and the aggregation of lots within platted subdivisions where five or fewer of the original lots are affected within a platted subdivision filed with the county clerk and recorder are exempt from approval as subdivision An Amended Plat must be prepared following the requirements of the Montana Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 22-24b (30) S4100 except that in place of the governing bodyrsquos approval the landowner certifies that the approval of the governing body is not required pursuant to 76-3-207 (1) Finding of Fact 5 Section III Design and Improvement Standards of the Subdivision Regulations 7 Streets and Roads have been met by the project road design planned in Option 1 7 Streets and Roads (c1a) Streets shall intersect at right angles except when topography precludes and in no case shall the intersection be less than sixty (60) degrees (c 1b) two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point or their centerlines shall be offset at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet (c1b) Intersection design shall provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways Note The existing roads in the Madison Addition have an operating design speed of 20 miles per hour per Table II of the Design Standards Additionally the Option 1 plan provides roadway meeting point standards in c1b and provides 2 stop signs for vehicles exiting the

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 4: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

3

outside of the construction limits INGRESSEGRESS ndash ldquoA minimum of two accesses are required for emergency servicerdquo Chapter 5 of the 2017 Growth Policy focuses on the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) issues related to fire hazard severity The ldquoPolicyrdquo acknowledges the potential fire danger within the Town where residential development is surrounded by dense lodge pole pine and landscape vegetation with little or no defensible space throughout the neighborhoods Goal 14 and the associated objectives in the ldquoPolicyrdquo provide the primary steps the Town intends to take to address the fire hazard issues related to the WUI areas including adoption of guidelines and regulations for fire protection and defensible space One can only speculate because said guidelines and regulations have not yet been developed or implemented that the Town intends to require a minimum of two accesses for fire and emergency service access for future residential developments However without the specific guidelines and regulations in place requiring a second ingressegress the Townrsquos review of the project impacts must simply focus on applicable current promulgated subdivision statues rules and regulations The Moonrise Meadows application includes a fire hazard analysis prepared by Coffman Engineers The analysis considers currently promulgated and applicable guidelines codes and regulations that apply to the development including ldquofire department accessrdquo During the public review the Town Planning Advisory Board members public and the Council expressed that only having one access to the subdivision is a safety concern Based on the stated public and Council concern and without any specific regulation requiring a second access in the Town code the applicant proposed two new options for access Option 1 includes two accesses one aligned with Grayling Avenue and one aligned with Cascade Avenue Both roads would be 28 feet wide one ndashway streets with two lanes This option allows two way vehicle circulation in case of an emergency vehicles in the subdivision can exist on one two lane 28 foot wide road and fire service vehicles can enter on another two lane 28 foot wide and separated roadway Regarding Planning Advisory Board Condition of Approval 10 as I understand the administrative record the PAB was aware as the Council should be that the WYSR standards adopted in 1982 do not explicitly require more than one access Fire Code Section D106 1 allows for exceptions to having two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads when all buildings including non-residential occupancies are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems The proposed 180 unit project includes sprinklers in all buildings Additionally the project sponsor has chosen to implement key mitigation measures by design to address fire safety issues The plan includes fire resistant exterior building construction landscape improvements to provide a minimum of 30 foot defensible space around buildings fire fighting water supply (hydrants with water flow) rendering the fire hazard severity on the low end of the spectrum as defined by the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code Secondly there are no new specific ingressegress standards requiring a minimum of two accesses in the Town code Accordingly the project plan addresses the public and decision makers concerns for a second access in good faith and has provided Option 1 roadway configuration Not only is the project plan consistent with all of the policies contained in the Towns 2017 Growth Policy Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision regulations the Council must find based on evidence in the record

4

approval of the plan because the project will not have any significant adverse fire safety impacts on public health and safety that would result from the project build-out Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo

Access Recommendations and Conclusions- Morrison Maierle

The project sponsor agrees to construct the recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development - Option 1 - with modifications as noted on page 7 and 8 of the Exhibit C report Finding of Fact 1 The study of the ingressegress analysis prepared by MM concludes that Option 1 does in fact provide a minimum of two access points Source Exhibit C Page 8 ldquoWith the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other eventrdquo Finding of Fact 2 The Madison Addition record is replete with evidence to show that back in 1982 the developer and the Town entered in to a Development Agreement (DA) that agreement created some very site specific standards for roads in the subdivision which were built out and currently exist Page 2 of that DA 3 makes it clear that all streets shall be constructed and installed in accordance with any applicable subdivision statutes rules andor regulations Source (Development Agreement - made 9th day of December 1982 - recorded- Film 73 page1337) The Council noted in their discussion that the proposed Option 1 would require use of property outside the boundary of Tract 1 and shown on the preliminary plat ie Lots 1 and 2 of the Madison Addition The Council raised concerns about the proposed use of the lots as potentially restricted under the governing covenants The situation is not directly addressed within the verbiage of the CCampRrsquoS This document is comprehensive in its intent and scope with many places to address this issue if the need was felt to do so If it was a concern a reasonable person could conclude that it would have been included in this document The definition of a PUD is contained in Section 137 and Section 17 Planned Unit Development 171 spells out the Intent- ldquoto encourage better land userdquo by ldquorelaxing the strict mechanical regulations of these covenantsrdquo all to accommodate preferred unit development In fact it goes so far as to allow for increase in density where land area is used for things like swimming pools Exceptions made to Section 1 Definitions are spelt out in

5

172 including ldquodevelopment and location of streets and utilitiesrdquo and Item 2 specifically allows for Common Open Space to ldquocontain complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of occupants of the developmentrdquo Finding of Fact 3 The use of Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements reduces single family residential density by two dwellings adds Open Space reduces overall traffic in the subdivision and avoids development of two new driveway cuts at a roadway intersection Grayling Ave CCampRrsquoS throughout address health and safety issues including parking congestion hazardous driving conditions adequate access for firefighting including the layout and number of fire hydrants and fire walkways This document requires infrastructure to be built to standards required by the Town of West Yellowstone It is reasonable and certainly in the interest of the public health and safety to conclude that in a situation where the Town is requiring a second emergency access for health and safety in and out of the development the Moonrise Meadows PUD development Option 1 road access using Lots 1 and 2 is specifically preferred by the CCampRrsquos The Option 1 road meets the promulgated fire code requirements of the Town and satisfies the desire of public and the Town Council for two roadway access points Dedicating Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements and open space reduces density that the CCampRrsquoS would in fact encourage rather than prohibit Finally use of Lots 1 and 2 improves health and safety for the benefit and enjoyment of all occupants of the subdivision Finding of Fact 4 The aggregation of Lots 1 amp 2 into Tract 1 is allowed without governing approval under the adopted Subdivision Regulations In Section II Procedures item 19 Correcting or Amending Filed Final Plats (b) states (The relocation of common boundaries and the aggregation of lots within platted subdivisions where five or fewer of the original lots are affected within a platted subdivision filed with the county clerk and recorder are exempt from approval as subdivision An Amended Plat must be prepared following the requirements of the Montana Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 22-24b (30) S4100 except that in place of the governing bodyrsquos approval the landowner certifies that the approval of the governing body is not required pursuant to 76-3-207 (1) Finding of Fact 5 Section III Design and Improvement Standards of the Subdivision Regulations 7 Streets and Roads have been met by the project road design planned in Option 1 7 Streets and Roads (c1a) Streets shall intersect at right angles except when topography precludes and in no case shall the intersection be less than sixty (60) degrees (c 1b) two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point or their centerlines shall be offset at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet (c1b) Intersection design shall provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways Note The existing roads in the Madison Addition have an operating design speed of 20 miles per hour per Table II of the Design Standards Additionally the Option 1 plan provides roadway meeting point standards in c1b and provides 2 stop signs for vehicles exiting the

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 5: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

4

approval of the plan because the project will not have any significant adverse fire safety impacts on public health and safety that would result from the project build-out Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo

Access Recommendations and Conclusions- Morrison Maierle

The project sponsor agrees to construct the recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development - Option 1 - with modifications as noted on page 7 and 8 of the Exhibit C report Finding of Fact 1 The study of the ingressegress analysis prepared by MM concludes that Option 1 does in fact provide a minimum of two access points Source Exhibit C Page 8 ldquoWith the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other eventrdquo Finding of Fact 2 The Madison Addition record is replete with evidence to show that back in 1982 the developer and the Town entered in to a Development Agreement (DA) that agreement created some very site specific standards for roads in the subdivision which were built out and currently exist Page 2 of that DA 3 makes it clear that all streets shall be constructed and installed in accordance with any applicable subdivision statutes rules andor regulations Source (Development Agreement - made 9th day of December 1982 - recorded- Film 73 page1337) The Council noted in their discussion that the proposed Option 1 would require use of property outside the boundary of Tract 1 and shown on the preliminary plat ie Lots 1 and 2 of the Madison Addition The Council raised concerns about the proposed use of the lots as potentially restricted under the governing covenants The situation is not directly addressed within the verbiage of the CCampRrsquoS This document is comprehensive in its intent and scope with many places to address this issue if the need was felt to do so If it was a concern a reasonable person could conclude that it would have been included in this document The definition of a PUD is contained in Section 137 and Section 17 Planned Unit Development 171 spells out the Intent- ldquoto encourage better land userdquo by ldquorelaxing the strict mechanical regulations of these covenantsrdquo all to accommodate preferred unit development In fact it goes so far as to allow for increase in density where land area is used for things like swimming pools Exceptions made to Section 1 Definitions are spelt out in

5

172 including ldquodevelopment and location of streets and utilitiesrdquo and Item 2 specifically allows for Common Open Space to ldquocontain complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of occupants of the developmentrdquo Finding of Fact 3 The use of Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements reduces single family residential density by two dwellings adds Open Space reduces overall traffic in the subdivision and avoids development of two new driveway cuts at a roadway intersection Grayling Ave CCampRrsquoS throughout address health and safety issues including parking congestion hazardous driving conditions adequate access for firefighting including the layout and number of fire hydrants and fire walkways This document requires infrastructure to be built to standards required by the Town of West Yellowstone It is reasonable and certainly in the interest of the public health and safety to conclude that in a situation where the Town is requiring a second emergency access for health and safety in and out of the development the Moonrise Meadows PUD development Option 1 road access using Lots 1 and 2 is specifically preferred by the CCampRrsquos The Option 1 road meets the promulgated fire code requirements of the Town and satisfies the desire of public and the Town Council for two roadway access points Dedicating Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements and open space reduces density that the CCampRrsquoS would in fact encourage rather than prohibit Finally use of Lots 1 and 2 improves health and safety for the benefit and enjoyment of all occupants of the subdivision Finding of Fact 4 The aggregation of Lots 1 amp 2 into Tract 1 is allowed without governing approval under the adopted Subdivision Regulations In Section II Procedures item 19 Correcting or Amending Filed Final Plats (b) states (The relocation of common boundaries and the aggregation of lots within platted subdivisions where five or fewer of the original lots are affected within a platted subdivision filed with the county clerk and recorder are exempt from approval as subdivision An Amended Plat must be prepared following the requirements of the Montana Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 22-24b (30) S4100 except that in place of the governing bodyrsquos approval the landowner certifies that the approval of the governing body is not required pursuant to 76-3-207 (1) Finding of Fact 5 Section III Design and Improvement Standards of the Subdivision Regulations 7 Streets and Roads have been met by the project road design planned in Option 1 7 Streets and Roads (c1a) Streets shall intersect at right angles except when topography precludes and in no case shall the intersection be less than sixty (60) degrees (c 1b) two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point or their centerlines shall be offset at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet (c1b) Intersection design shall provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways Note The existing roads in the Madison Addition have an operating design speed of 20 miles per hour per Table II of the Design Standards Additionally the Option 1 plan provides roadway meeting point standards in c1b and provides 2 stop signs for vehicles exiting the

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 6: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

5

172 including ldquodevelopment and location of streets and utilitiesrdquo and Item 2 specifically allows for Common Open Space to ldquocontain complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of occupants of the developmentrdquo Finding of Fact 3 The use of Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements reduces single family residential density by two dwellings adds Open Space reduces overall traffic in the subdivision and avoids development of two new driveway cuts at a roadway intersection Grayling Ave CCampRrsquoS throughout address health and safety issues including parking congestion hazardous driving conditions adequate access for firefighting including the layout and number of fire hydrants and fire walkways This document requires infrastructure to be built to standards required by the Town of West Yellowstone It is reasonable and certainly in the interest of the public health and safety to conclude that in a situation where the Town is requiring a second emergency access for health and safety in and out of the development the Moonrise Meadows PUD development Option 1 road access using Lots 1 and 2 is specifically preferred by the CCampRrsquos The Option 1 road meets the promulgated fire code requirements of the Town and satisfies the desire of public and the Town Council for two roadway access points Dedicating Lots 1 and 2 for roadway improvements and open space reduces density that the CCampRrsquoS would in fact encourage rather than prohibit Finally use of Lots 1 and 2 improves health and safety for the benefit and enjoyment of all occupants of the subdivision Finding of Fact 4 The aggregation of Lots 1 amp 2 into Tract 1 is allowed without governing approval under the adopted Subdivision Regulations In Section II Procedures item 19 Correcting or Amending Filed Final Plats (b) states (The relocation of common boundaries and the aggregation of lots within platted subdivisions where five or fewer of the original lots are affected within a platted subdivision filed with the county clerk and recorder are exempt from approval as subdivision An Amended Plat must be prepared following the requirements of the Montana Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 22-24b (30) S4100 except that in place of the governing bodyrsquos approval the landowner certifies that the approval of the governing body is not required pursuant to 76-3-207 (1) Finding of Fact 5 Section III Design and Improvement Standards of the Subdivision Regulations 7 Streets and Roads have been met by the project road design planned in Option 1 7 Streets and Roads (c1a) Streets shall intersect at right angles except when topography precludes and in no case shall the intersection be less than sixty (60) degrees (c 1b) two streets meeting a third street from opposite sides shall meet at the same point or their centerlines shall be offset at least one hundred twenty-five (125) feet (c1b) Intersection design shall provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety as dictated by the designed operating speeds on the individual roadways Note The existing roads in the Madison Addition have an operating design speed of 20 miles per hour per Table II of the Design Standards Additionally the Option 1 plan provides roadway meeting point standards in c1b and provides 2 stop signs for vehicles exiting the

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 7: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

6

subdivision making a 4 way stop with existing stop signs at Cascade and Grayling Avenue offsetting the 125 ft sight line standard thereby alleviating potential visibility impacts TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ndash ldquosummary document showing levels of servicerdquo As noted above Mr Yeakey in response to the Councils questions has retained a second traffic engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) to do complete a peer review of the initial traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo Using inappropriate ITE Standards Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing ATS over estimated trip generation rates In summary the peer review study prepared by MM found that the ATS analysis used a trip generation (ITE) standard ldquoLand Use Code 210 ndash Single Family Detached Housing that may not have been appropriate In fact the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing standard is more reflective and more in-line with the land use description provided When applying the appropriate ITE standards the study shows (See Table 1 in Exhibit C) a twenty four (24) percent reduction in average daily vehicle trips a thirty four (34) percent reduction in estimated AM peak trips and a thirty six percent (36) reduction in estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips Additionally the trip generation estimates in the ATS and the MM reports assumes that all units will be fully occupied one hundred percent (100) at all times a most conservative ldquoworst caserdquo analysis It is projected that fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Moreover the analysis factors in summer traffic impacts with counts that included school traffic but school is not in session during summer peak hour traffic Finally the original Madison Addition development project roadway designs relied on 20 MPH roadway speeds Finding of Fact 1 The entire above factors aside based on the analyses included in Exhibit C both reviewing engineers ATS and MM confirmed that based on facts and evidence presented in their reports that the proposed development is estimated to have a minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle circulation and congestion There are no substandard traffic operations identified The MM report provides detailed Tables and graphic summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations Although each intersection study found the average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for Level C at ldquoworst caserdquo the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue Finding of Fact 2 Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic Based on the operations

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 8: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

7

queue study evidence in the record no additional mitigation is warranted for any of the recommended study area intersections TRAFFIC SAFETY ndash ldquopedestrian and bike safetyrdquo The existing streets pedestrian ways intersections fire turnarounds etc were specified in the Madison Addition plan in 1983 and the environmental assessment (EA) assumed densities for the R-4 site greater than are what is now proposed Moreover the initial EA projected project traffic impacts based on a 20 mph speed limit yet the current posted speed limit is 25 mph The (EA) assumed that all traffic within the subdivision would be generated back into the Town of West Yellowstone on Electric Street and Hayden Street Furthermore the EA estimated traffic counts of 5000+ at full buildout of the 865 units The subdivision was designed for a full build out of 865 units the project plan alone reduces the total build out to 820 and it was concluded that the proposed streets can provide these capacities with minimal conflict or congestion In addition to studying roadway levels of service and ingress and egress questions the engineering firm Morrison Maierle (MM) also evaluated vehicle safety pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows project (See Exhibit C Attached ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo page 10-11 Finding of Fact 1 In summary upon review of reported vehicle crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to the north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue there were a total of four reported accidents during the timeframe January 1 2013 to December 31 2017 Based on the data contained in the report there is not a significant number of vehicle accidents identified that would warrant additional analysis andor mitigation Finding of Fact 2 It should be noted again that Town officials public and Council expressed concern regarding visibility and sight distance to the north and south at the project entry due to curves in Hayden Street and in winter during snow removal season The project proposal for a 4 way stops at the intersection at Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue was found to alleviate these concerns at the March 5 2019 Council hearing (Source Page 12 February 19 2019 ldquoStaff Report Moonrise Meadows Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applicationrdquo) Finding of Fact 3 Mr Sabolsky in your letter to me dated April 22 2019 you noted on page 2 that indeed a trail extending from North Electric to the school property in fact exists This pedestrian and bike access is separated from the subdivision streets It is not clear how much the existing pathway is used by current residents in the subdivision at this time However it is noted in your letter that the existing separated pathway ldquois unlikely to actually serve the future subdivision residents It is not clear why the residents of the new development canrsquot simply walk across Hayden Street down Grayling Ave and access the pedestrian walkway at the end of the street If the streets are indeed unsafe for pedestrians as some members of the public have claimed in the record why would the Town as you

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 9: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

8

noted in your letter promote a street-side path Would the Town consider a mitigation of this issue to include improving access to the existing separated pathway at the cul-de-sacs of Cascade and Grayling Avenues and perhaps maintaining it in winter months with regular plowing The MM report page 11 recommends consistent with the Town staff recommendations that a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicycle facilities improvements is reasonable to ensure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future Finding of Fact 4 MM engineering in order to improve pedestrian andor bicycle access and safety recommends the Town encourage all residents to use the long-established pathway separated from the roadways in lieu of promoting a street-side pathway The engineers suggest that the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter Finding of Fact 5 The Findings of Fact Conclusions and Condition of Approval of the First Preliminary Plat of the Madison Addition state ldquo8 the subdivision will enhance public health and safety by alleviating residential crowding and lessoning congestion in the old Town site thereby creating a safer environment for families outside the commercial area of Townrdquo SEWER - ldquosewer discharge calculationsrdquo It is worth noting that the Town of West Yellowstone does not currently have capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow from the proposed Moonrise Meadows PUD It is unclear where the capacity for acceptance of additional wastewater flow for the Moonrise Meadow PUD has been allocated In December 1982 the Town and the property owners at the time entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo which provided a cost allocation agreement between the Town and the developer for increased municipal services roads sewer water storm water The agreement runs with the land and the agreement focus is on the Town approved ldquoMadison Addition ldquoZoning Planrdquo which shows the proposed zoning and subdivision layout for the whole of the property All of the municipal services roads sewer and water facilities needed to the serve the existing subdivision have been built and accepted by the Town and exist today The record shows in 1996 the Town Operations Manager Ken Davis reported to the ldquoDepartment of Environmental Qualityrdquo in Helena Montana that ldquoThe Town water designed and built in 1989 and the town waste water treatment facility upgraded in 1995 were built to provide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQ (See Attached Exhibit A February 6 1996 letter from Town of West Yellowstone to Department of Environmental Quality) It is noted by the applicants and Towns engineers that until such time as a temporary facility can be implemented or a long-term facility can be constructed and placed in operation acceptance of additional wastewater flow critically jeopardized the Towns ability to meet the current wastewater discharge

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 10: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

9

permit Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

The maximum monthly sanitary sewer discharge has been included in the calculations Peak and average hourly demand are included as well Conservatively an assumed infiltration rate is added to the sewer demand calculations though the depth to ground water makes this extremely unlikely The methods used for calculating peak flow for sanitary sewer (The Harmon Formula) and the peak water use (multiplying average daily demand times 3) cause some discrepancy in the two values Additionally water used for irrigation is unlikely to enter the waste water collection system Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new building permits and sewer connections allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new sewer connections granted by the Town

WATER- ldquowater demand calculationsrdquo

The Town has a moratorium on additional water demands The Town is currently working on a water model to determine system pressures and to determine if additional water is needed to meet current obligated demands

Finding of Fact 1

The water and sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

Irrigation has been included in the demand calculations for the water system This value is conservative as the average number of persons per dwelling unit is expected to be less than 25 for the two-bedroom units Additionally the modern construction of the buildings will use more efficient low-flow fixtures than similar existing developments The fire flow demands for the hydrants and sprinkler systems are found in Appendix F - Fire Protection Plan Hydrant testing performed in 2017 shows that the existing system is capable of meeting fire flow demands These flow demands are not

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 11: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

10

included in the general water demand as they occur rarely during emergency situations Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water connections granted by the Town

STORM WATER ndash ldquoprovide an analysis for the 10-year and 100 year storm eventrdquo

Finding 1

The stormwater report has been updated to evaluate the 10-year and 100-year storm events The water and sanitary sewer design report has been updated

(See Attached Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

The report includes an explanation of the surrounding off-site flow conditions Please see the enclosed updated stormwater design report

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

In good faith and in the spirit of cooperation the project sponsor Mr Yeakey and his development team have been working diligently to provide a comprehensive response to the request for additional information by your Town Council and specifically addressed in your April 1 and 22 2019 letters The above report also provides some additional historic perspective important for the Council consideration and future deliberations including the fact that the proposed project includes a voluntary 20 density reduction and that the Town and the previous land developer have entered in to a ldquoDevelopment Agreementrdquo allocating costs for road sewer and water improvements all of which exist today Moreover historic evidence has been provided to show that back in 1996 the Town reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Bureau that in 1989 town water capacity and in 1995 town sewer capacity was built out to ldquoprovide adequate services to the Madison Addition at full build out and are a matter of record with the DEQrdquo

Apparently the Madison Addition development has paid its fair share of all costs for existing roads sewer and water capacity required to serve the existing subdivision and including the build out of the Moonrise Meadow PUD

The focus of the responses above and supported by evidence in the attached plans reports and studies address each of the Councilrsquos concerns specified in your letters In summary reexamining some of the previous studies and revisiting details of the plans will result in a better project For example a minor amendment to Plat of Lot 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition will reduce the tree loss located in the proposed buffer areas between existing single family homes and the proposed Moonrise Meadows condominium project These changes will provide significant additional protection to vegetation in buffers between the residential land uses well beyond the yard setbacks required by the

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 12: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

11

Townrsquos PDU rules and will allow for additional screening for the surrounding single family residential development and noise buffer along the eastern and southern property boundaries

The detailed ldquopeer reviewrdquo traffic analysis prepared by Morrison Maierle Engineers provides significant additional information pointing out that the initial traffic study findings grossly overestimated the potential vehicle trip generation for average weekday trips by 24 AM peak hour trips by 34 and PM peak hour trips by 36 respectively Based on evidence in the report the engineers found that the Option 1 access plan meets the currently promulgated Town guidelines and regulations and addresses the Town Councilrsquos fire safety road access concerns and desire to have two access points for ingress and egress Moreover the report found that the volume to capacity ratio facts indicate that there are no roadway capacity concerns that warrant mitigation by the Town Lastly the study confirmed that there are no significant vehicle traffic safety impacts and that existing pathways provide existing and new residences with safe alternative pedestrian and bicycle access separated from the subdivision roadways

Finally two updated reports for sewer water and storm water now address the project demands The updated stormwater report now includes the analysis for the 10 year and 100 year analysis pursuant to the standards specified in Circular DEQ-8 Because of the history of the site development and in good faith and consistent with the historic TownDeveloper Agreement it would seem fair for the Moonrise Meadow PUD to be granted first rights to any new water andor sewer connections and building permits allowed once the temporary or long-term facility improvements are made Accordingly on behalf of my clients I hereby request that the Town add a condition of approval stating specifically that the Moonrise Meadow PUD project be granted first rights for any new water and sewer connections granted by the Town

Accordingly I respectfully request that you include this letter and the attachments noted and provided herewith in the project administrative record and provide our team an opportunity to present these responses and findings of fact to the Town Council at the earliest possible convenience I look forward to continue working with you and your staff to bring this project forward to a successful approval as timely as is possible Please feel free to phone me andor any of the team members for additional clarifications regarding their respective work

Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation

Scott L Hochstrasser President (mobile telephone 415-572-2777) (email slh1ipaaolcom)

CC Rob Yeakey Client

ATTACHMENTS

1 Exhibit A - ldquoTown of Yellowstone letter to Department of Environmental Quality prepared by Town Operations Manager dated February 6 1996rdquo

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 13: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

12

2 Exhibit Bamp B1 ldquoAmended Plat of Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 and Track 1 Madison Addition dated 4-23-19 Exhibit B1 ndash ldquoMoonrise Meadow Landscape Planrdquo prepared by Big Country Landscapes Inc dated 4-30-2019rdquo

3 Exhibit C ldquoMoonrise Meadows West Yellowstone Galiatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Reviewrdquo prepared by Morrison and Maierle Engineers dated April 26 2019

4 Exhibit D ldquoDesign Report Water and Sanitary Sewer Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo

prepared by CampH Engineering dated July 2018- updated April 2019

5 Exhibit E ldquoDesign Report Stormwater Management Moonrise Meadows Subdivisionrdquo prepared by CampH Engineering dated August 2018 - updated April 2019

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 14: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Δ

Δ

Δ

LOT AREA (SF) OPEN SPACE (SF)1 311432 97899

2 150785 58663

3 183257 22218

4 97432 05 218748 0

DedicatedRight-of-Way 6669 0

TOTAL 968323 178780

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 15: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Δ

amorse
Draft

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 16: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

April 26 2019 Robert Yeakey Yeakey Family Trust 11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714 Re Moonrise Meadows | West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Robert At your request Morrison-Maierle has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by Abelin Traffic Services (ATS) and provided additional analyses to address specific information requests from the Town Council of West Yellowstone outlined in an April 1 2019 letter to you from the Town Manager Daniel Sabolsky It is our understanding that at their March 5 2019 meeting the Town Council decided to postpone consideration of the proposed Moonrise Meadows preliminary plat and conditional permit application pending receipt of additional clarifying information Our peer review effort and additional analyses have been focused on addressing ingressegress related to the development the traffic impact study and traffic safety associated elements as delineated in the Town Managerrsquos letter

Proposed Development

The proposed development is to be located in West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana as noted previously on Tract 1 of the Madison Addition in the southwest quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East PMM The original development proposal evaluated as part of the traffic impact study (TIS) included a single access for the property to Hayden Street aligned with Grayling Avenue Since completion of the TIS two options have been developed for providing primary and secondary access to the development that will be discussed later Existing residential properties are located adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development The northern and western boundaries border Custer Gallatin National Forest lands The development evaluated as part of the TIS included 144 apartment units 36 row houses and retaining one existing single-family residential home As currently proposed the single-family residential home would still remain but the remainder would be comprised of up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units The total estimated number of dwelling units remains the same from the TIS prepared by ATS

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 17: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 2 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Impact Study Peer Review

Trip Generation

ATS Traffic Impact Study Analyses

Estimated vehicular trip generation for the Moonrise Meadows development was based on 144 apartment units and 36 row houses as part of the original ATS TIS analyses using the proposed number of dwelling units and Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment reportedly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) Data for ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Apartment was taken from the Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition based on our review of the analyses As provided in the ATS TIS the development was projected to generate weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicular trip volumes of 100 and 125 respectively plus 1298 weekday (24-hour period) trips at full build-out and occupancy The application of Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing may not have been appropriate as the original development plan was for six (6) six-plex units or row houses It may have been more appropriate to utilize ITE Land Use Code 220 ndash Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) from the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition in developing the estimated trip generation for the original development proposal

Revised Development Proposal Trip Generation

As noted previously the current development proposal is for constructing up to fifteen (15) three story twelve-plex condominiums for a total of 181 dwelling units counting the existing single-family detached home on the property that will remain as part of the development We then verified the estimated vehicular trip generation based on average rates for Land Use Code 210 ndash Single-Family Detached Housing and Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) found in ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 below ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) was selected as it is more reflective of and more in-line with the use description provided in the Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition for the proposed three story twelve-plex unit development Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition ldquoMid-Rise multifamily housing includes apartments townhouses and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors)rdquo As shown in Table 1 on the following page utilization of ITE Land Use Code 221 yields a substantially lower estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed development projecting a total of 990 average weekday trips and weekday AM and PM peak hour total trips of 66 and 80 vehicles respectively based on the current development proposal This represents a twenty-four percent (24) reduction in average weekday trips (990 lt 1298) a thirty-four percent (34) reduction in estimated AM peak hour trips (66 lt 100) and a thirty-six percent (36) reduction to estimated PM peak hour trips (80 lt 125) Additionally the vehicle trip generation estimates in the ATS TIS and those provided with the revised analysis assume that all units will be fully occupied (100) at all times ndash the most conservative analysis scenario As we have been made aware the proposed development is projecting that up to fifty percent (50) of the ownership of the condominium units would be part-time Thus it is not highly likely that the peak traffic estimates forecast from either study would be realized

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 18: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 3 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Summary with Current Development Proposal

Land Use Units

Average Weekday Trips Average Weekday

AM Peak Hour Trips Average Weekday

PM Peak Hour Trips

Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total Rate Per Unit

Enter Exit Total

Estimated Total Site Generated Trips (Units = Dwelling Units)

1Single-Family Detached Housing

1 944 5 5 10 074 0 1 1 099 1 0 1

1Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)

180 544 490 490 980 036 17 48 65 044 48 31 79

TOTALS 181 Avg 546

495 495 990 Avg 036

17 49 66 Avg 044

49 31 80

1Source Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2 Data - Part 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC) September 2017

Traffic Operations

Capacity amp Level-of-Service

2018 Existing Conditions amp 2026 Total Traffic Analyses

The traffic operations analyses included in the TIS are based on the original trip generation estimates that are greater than those shown in Table 1 above Therefore the analyses provide a more conservative estimate of traffic operations and were not revised as a part of this review The Town of West Yellowstone specifically requested summaries of intersection traffic operations (levels of service) for each lane group at the intersections evaluated as a part of the TIS Levels of service and average vehicle delays were included in the analyses provided in Appendix C ndash LOS Calculations of the TIS In order to satisfy the Town of West Yellowstonersquos request graphical summaries of existing and projected traffic volumes and operations are provided in the following figures that are attached to this review summary

Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes 521 amp 5222018

Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment

Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic

Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary

Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 19: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 4 of 13 April 26 2019

Summer Peak Season Traffic Operations Analyses

Analyses Included with TIS

The TIS did note a peak season analysis was performed for the study area intersections by doubling the volume of traffic estimated for 2026 total traffic conditions for the weekday AM afternoon school PM and PM peak hours The analyses were not included with the ATS TIS The TIS did note the following

No LOS issues were identified for Hayden Street and its intersections with Gibbon Avenue and De Lacy Avenue

The intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street may experience LOS D on the Hayden Street southbound approach with double the volume of traffic for all movements on all approaches

Peaking Factor Analyses

Morrison-Maierle performed an evaluation of estimated traffic operations with summer traffic peaking during the summer months coinciding with the tourist season A peaking factor was derived by evaluating traffic volume counts obtained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on US Highway 20 between Hayden Street and Geyser Street during the months of June and July and comparing those volumes to MDT reported average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes MDT did not obtain volume counts in 2015 and counts were conducted during September in 2012 The peaking factor analyses are summarized in Table 2 below

Table 2 US Highway 20 Summer Tourism Season Traffic Peaking Factor Analyses

Year

MDT Reported

AADT (Vehicles)

MDT Reported

June or July Volume

Count ADT (Vehicles)

Calculated Peaking

Factor PF (ADT AADT)

Calculated Peaking Factor

Mean Value PFMV

Standard Deviation

Recommended Peaking Factor

PFMV +

2011 3410 5399 158

175 030 205

2013 3810 5964 157

2014 4370 6831 156

2016 4040 8284 205

2017 4472 9864 221

2018 4931 7604 154

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 20: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 5 of 13 April 26 2019

US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Summer Peaking Analyses

Analyses Considerations

Morrison-Maierle then performed capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses of summer peak traffic in comparison to those evaluated by ATS for existing conditions (2018 traffic volumes) and estimated 2026 total traffic volumes with the following considerations

US Highway 20 through traffic volumes (eastbound and westbound) were multiplied by the recommended 205 peaking factor

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Left and right turning traffic in the eastbound and westbound directions on US Highway 20 as well as traffic on the Hayden Street approaches are not estimated to be significantly affected by summer peaking traffic

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Counts conducted by ATS were done at a time when West Yellowstone schools were still in session which would not be the case during the summer Thereby the afternoon school PM peak traffic volumes may differ substantially from those observed the ATS TIS and have been excluded for the summer peaking analyses

Traffic volumes on the northbound and southbound Hayden Street approaches as well as left and right-turn volumes on US Highway 20 were each rounded up to a multiple of five

Queue lengths list in feet in Table 3 on the following page are based on an estimated 25 feet per vehicle

Analyses Findings

Morrison-Maierlersquos summer peaking analyses that are summarized in Table 3 on the following page found that the southbound Hayden Street approach may experience LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour based on estimated 2026 peak traffic volumes It should be noted that the estimated LOS D is marginally over the threshold between LOS C and D that occurs at

250 seconds for stop-controlled intersections per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition | A

Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board

The HCM specifically notes ldquoIn evaluating the overall performance of TWSC [two-way stop-controlled] intersections it is important to consider measures of effectiveness such as volume-to-capacity ratios for individual movements average queue lengths and 95th percentile queue lengths in addition to considering delay By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only such as delay for the minor-street left turn users may make less effective traffic control decisionsrdquo

The volume-to-capacity ratios (ratio of the volume of traffic on the approach versus the available capacity to handle traffic on that approach) do not indicate that there are any capacity concerns that would require mitigation Again the analyses are based on the projected traffic volumes for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums included as part of the original ATS TIS that are greater than the traffic volumes estimated under the current development proposal

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 21: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 6 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 3 US Highway 20 amp Hayden Street Intersection Operations Summary for Summer Peaking Traffic

Analysis

Scenario Lane Group LOS

Average

Vehicle

Delay

(secveh)

Entry

Volume

(veh)

Volume to

Capacity

Ratio

(vc)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(veh)

HCS 95 Max

Queue Length

(ft)

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 76 365 000 00 0

WB LTR A 80 180 001 00 0

NB LTR B 125 40 008 03 25

SB LTR A 132 80 015 05 25

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2018 Traffic

EB LTR A 83 215 000 00 0

WB LTR A 77 470 001 00 0

NB LTR B 148 25 006 02 25

SB LTR C 163 35 010 03 25

Weekday

AM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 77 465 001 00 0

WB LTR A 83 230 001 00 0

NB LTR B 149 55 013 05 25

SB LTR C 203 140 037 17 50

Weekday

PM Peak Hour

2026 Traffic

EB LTR A 87 285 002 00 0

WB LTR A 79 615 002 01 25

NB LTR C 217 50 019 07 25

SB LTR D 263 70 029 12 50

EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound NB = Northbound and SB = Southbound | LTR = Left-Through-Right

Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS A = 0 ndash 10 secveh

LOS B = 10 ndash 15 secveh

LOS C = 15 ndash 25 secveh

LOS D = 25 ndash 35 secveh

LOS E = 35 ndash 50 secveh

LOS F = gt 50 secveh

The difference between the Morrison-Maierle analyses from those recently evaluated by ATS in their letter dated April 8 2019 is the result of only multiplying the US Highway 20 through traffic volumes by the peaking factor Again it is not estimated that the Hayden Street approaches nor the left and right turn volumes on US Highway 20 would experience the same peaking characteristics during the summer months Estimated site generated traffic from Moonrise

Meadows Condominiums certainly would not experience peaking during that timeframe

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 22: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 7 of 13 April 26 2019

Queuing Analyses

As shown in Table 3 on the previous page estimated vehicle queue lengths are included as part of the capacity and LOS analyses As specifically noted by the HCM evaluating vehicle queuing in conjunction with estimated average vehicle delays may provide a better representation of potential traffic impacts than simply looking at LOS alone Primary traffic impacts from the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums would be experienced on the southbound approach at the intersection of US Highway 20 and Hayden Street Weighing projected queue lengths on that approach would provide further insight into potential traffic impacts from the development

The estimated 2026 total traffic with summer peaking analyses shown in Table 3 identify a calculated maximum queue length of 50 feet There is currently at least 150 feet of queue storage available on the southbound Hayden Street approach at its intersection with US Highway 20 from the stop bar northward without blocking the upstream intersection of Hayden Street and Gibbon Avenue nor the crosswalk on the south side of that intersection Therefore the slightly longer than LOS C average vehicle delays are not projected to create upstream adverse traffic impacts Thereby mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary for addressing estimated traffic operations with summer peak traffic at the US Highway 20 and Hayden Street intersection

Ingress Egress Considerations

CampH Engineering Access Options

Secondary access to the proposed development is a key concern as noted in review comments provided by the Town Manager in his April 1 2019 letter In particular the ability to evacuate residents if necessary while also maintaining access for emergency service providers is of paramount concern CampH Engineering and Surveying has prepared two alternatives as noted on the following page for providing primary and secondary access to the development that are attached for reference

Access Alternatives

Exhibit ndash Option 1

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way egress aligning with Cascade Avenue

A proposed 28 foot wide two-lane one-way ingress aligning with Grayling Avenue

Exhibit ndash Option 2

A proposed four-lane ingress egress aligning with Cascade Avenue having two lanes in each direction each with a paved surface width of 26 feet separated by a six foot wide median

An emergency access only roadway between Hayden Street and the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop aligned with Grayling Avenue ndash inclusive of breakaway emergency access gates at each end

Each option includes a provision for open space snow storage in the area between Hayden Street the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue

Each option above shows all-way stop control for the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 23: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 8 of 13 April 26 2019

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums

development is Option 1 with modifications as noted below

Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Additional Access Supporting Information amp Considerations

With the allowance for two-way traffic on each access road an alternative route would be available should one of the access roads become blocked due to an emergency or other event

A recommendation has been forwarded by the Planning Advisory Board to the Town Council to petition the US Forest Service to allow development of a street and associated public facilities from the west boundary of the property south to Iris Street

In consideration of installing all-way stop control at the Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue intersection the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) notes that ldquoAll-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection reducing through and turning speeds and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be presentrdquo

Sight Distance

The minimum sight distance for approaches to Hayden Street would be evaluated based on MDTrsquos intersection sight distance (ISD) criteria for a stop-controlled intersection Stop-controlled intersections are analyzed based on Cases B and F for two-way stop control or single approach stop-control and Case E for all-way stop-controlled intersections as found in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th Edition published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Case B evaluates left turn right turn and crossing maneuvers from the minor road approach which would be the proposed Cascade Avenue access Case F evaluates left turns from the major road (Hayden Street) Case E notes that the first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches The design minimum ISD values from AASHTO for design speeds of both 20 and 25 miles per hour are provided in Table 4 on the following page The currently posted speed limit on Hayden Street is 25 miles per hour however it should be noted that at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision the Town of West Yellowstone design standards utilized a design speed of 20 miles per hour for local roadways

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 24: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 9 of 13 April 26 2019

Table 4 AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Design Criteria

Design Speed

Stopping Sight

Distance (ft)

AASHTO Analysis Case

Minor Roadway Major

Roadway

E B1 B2 B3 F

Left Turn from Stop

Right Turn from Stop

Crossing Maneuver Left Turn

All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection

20 mph 115 225 195 195 165 The first vehicle stopped on each approach should be visible to the drivers of the first vehicles stopped on all other approaches 25 mph 155 280 240 240 205

As noted above the recommendation is to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue Thereby this would address sight distance concerns noted in the ATS TIS at that intersection At the intersection of Hayden Street and Cascade Avenue the recommended AASHTO sight distance for a 25 mph design speed is available to the north and south of the intersection from the existing Cascade Avenue approach Both intersections would meet the 20 mph intersection sight distance standard based on the Town of West Yellowstone design criteria for local roadways in-place at the time of platting and development of the Madison Addition Subdivision Comments provided by the Town of West Yellowstone noted that snow storage adjacent to roadways may restrict sight distance at intersections along Hayden Street A field review conducted by Morrison-Maierle in April 2019 noted that the available pavement width on Hayden Street in the area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development (28 feet or greater as field measured) allows for vehicles to pull beyond snow storage areas to see oncoming traffic without encroaching on the adjacent through travel lane This was observed during the course of the field review A comparison of the driverrsquos view from the stop sign location at Cascade Avenue and Hayden Street is shown in the images below

Figure A Comparison of Sight Distance Due to Snow Storage and Vehicle Encroachment beyond Stop Sign

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 25: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 10 of 13 April 26 2019

Traffic Safety Considerations

Historical Crash Experience

A review of reported crashes occurring on Hayden Street from US Highway 20 to north of its intersection with Gallatin Avenue was made through MDTrsquos crash database from January 1 2013 through December 31 2017 There were a total of four reported crashes occurring during that timeframe within the analysis segment Descriptions of the crashes along with the MDT route designations (in parentheses) are provided below

US Highway 20 (C000012E) amp Hayden Street (C007909N)

2015 ndash August 1120 am Intersection related Left turn same direction crash with no apparent injuries

2016 ndash September 710 pm Non-junction related Sideswipe same direction in parking lane with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp Gibbon Avenue (C107903N)

2017 ndash December 400 am Non-junction related Parked vehicle crash on right side of roadway with no known injuries

Hayden Street (C007909N) amp De Lacy Avenue (C007915N)

2017 ndash January 320 pm Intersection related Right angle crash with no apparent injuries

From the data above there is not a significant number of crashes or an identifiable crash trend that would warrant additional analysis for mitigation The one right angle crash that did occur was on snow covered roadways at around the school dismissal time which may have been contributing circumstances

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Mobility

The ATS TIS did not evaluate pedestrian andor bicyclist mobility as a part of the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project As part of our review the following items were noted along with recommendations regarding pedestrian and bicyclist mobility

Currently pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities are nearly non-existent in the immediate area of the proposed Moonrise Meadows development

There is a walking path located to the east of the development at the end of the Cascade Avenue and Grayling Avenue cul-de-sacs that links to De Lacy Avenue to the south near the school site however pedestrians andor bicyclists may elect to primarily utilize existing roadways for access which has been stated by interested members of the public through the hearing processes for the development

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 26: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 11 of 13 April 26 2019

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future To allow for connectivity within the development consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Montana Department of Transportation Review

As identified in the February 19 2019 Staff Report for the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Preliminary Plat Application correspondence dated December 14 2018 from Mike Tierney (planner with the Montana Department of Transportation) stated that MDT concurs with the findings in the [ATS] TIS and that the subdivision does not appear to require mitigation to state highways Furthermore ldquoMr Tierney stated that if the Town requires the subdivider to make mitigations or improvements on MDT roads an encroachment permit would be required and MDT wound need to approve the planrdquo

Conclusion

Based on our review of the Abelin Traffic Services traffic impact study for the Moonrise Meadows Condominium project as well as the analyses included herein the proposed development is estimated to have minimal impact on the area transportation system with particular regard to vehicle pedestrian and bicyclist safety The facts analyses and evidence provided above supports our findings that are summarized as follows

Development Traffic Generation

The forecast traffic generation included in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS overestimated the average daily and weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on the applied land use codes

Taking into consideration the revised development proposal with the three story twelve-plex units and applying the appropriate ITE Land Use Code 221 ndash Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) for the proposed use the current Moonrise Meadows development proposal is projected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than what was included in and evaluated as part of the original Abelin Traffic Services TIS

Traffic Operations Analyses

No substandard traffic operations were identified in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS for 2018 existing nor estimated 2026 total traffic conditions This peer review and additional analysis supports the initial findings presented in the Abelin Traffic Services TIS

The Town of West Yellowstone requested a summary document showing the level-of-service (LOS) for each turning movement at the study area intersections LOS is analyzed by lane group (lane with allowable movements) for two-way stop-controlled intersections using the latest Highway Capacity Software in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual Abelin Traffic Services provided a summary in their April 8 2019 response to this request Additionally Morrison-Maierle has provided graphical summaries of traffic operations for each study area intersection for 2018 existing and estimated 2026 total traffic operations

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 27: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 12 of 13 April 26 2019

Analyses of traffic operations under summer peaking conditions were evaluated by both Abelin Traffic Services (factoring in school impacts when school is normally out of session in the summer months) and Morrison-Maierle Although each found that average vehicle delays may exceed the threshold for LOS C the additional delay was not found to impact through traffic flow on US Highway 20 or upstream on Hayden Street towards its intersection with Gibbon Avenue

Estimated vehicle queue lengths on the southbound approach at the intersection of Hayden Street and US Highway 20 are projected to be within the available queue storage between US Highway 20 and Gibbon Avenue without causing upstream intersection blockage under summer peak traffic conditions

Based on the traffic operations and queuing analyses no additional mitigation is recommended at any of the study area intersections

Access Recommendations

The recommended access configuration for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums development is Option 1 as prepared by CampH Engineering and Surveying with the modifications as noted below

o Install each access road with a minimum paved surface width of 28 feet and adequate clearance beyond the paved surface to meet snow storage requirements and allow for adequate sight distance at intersections

o Allow for two-way traffic on each access roadway

o Install all-way stop control at the intersection of Hayden Street and Grayling Avenue This would assist with addressing intersection sight distance concerns noted by Abelin Traffic Services in the TIS It is also estimated that the Grayling Avenue access would experience the higher traffic volumes based on forecast trip distribution and the proposed layout of the twelve-plex units within the development

Pedestrian amp Bicyclist Considerations

In order to improve pedestrian andor bicyclist access and encourage them to use the long-established pathway away from traffic in lieu of existing roadways it is recommended that the Town of West Yellowstone andor the Madison Addition Property Owners Association consider improving the existing pathway and providing for its maintenance including snow removal in the winter

The recommendation by Town of West Yellowstone staff for recording of a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of a Special Improvement District (SID) for potential future pedestrian andor bicyclist facilities seems reasonable to insure equitable participation in those improvements by all benefitting parties should they be installed in the future

To allow for connectivity within the Moonrise Meadows Condominiums project consideration should be given to the incorporation of pedestrian andor bicycle elements within the development This would also alleviate coordination concerns with potential future improvements through an SID

Thank you for this opportunity to work with you in assessing transportation related planning for the proposed Moonrise Meadows Condominiums If you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contact me directly at (406) 922-6806 by cell phone at (406) 209-3960 or by email at teastwoodm-mnet Sincerely Tom Eastwood PE

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 28: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Moonrise Meadows Condominiums Traffic Impact Study Review Page 13 of 13 April 26 2019

Attachments Figure 1 Observed Traffic Volumes | 521 amp 5222018 Figure 2 ATS TIS Estimated Site Traffic Assignment Figure 3 ATS TIS Projected 2026 Total Traffic Figure 4 2018 Traffic LOS Summary Figure 5 2026 Traffic LOS Summary CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 1 CampH Engineering | Moonrise Meadows Cascade Entrance Exhibit ndash Option 2 Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2018 Weekday PM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour Capacity amp LOS Analysis Summer Peak Traffic ndash 2026 Weekday AM Peak Hour

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 29: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

N

8 4

12

8 (8)

3

40 4 [8](20)[32]

(4)[4]

(48) [16]

(28)[28]

(4)[4]

4930

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

8 16 8

4204

(4)

(4)(16)[4]

(4) [4]

2

4 60 12 [16]

[4]

44

4

(56)[40]

(12)[4]

(4) [16](4) [4]

(20) [12](4) [8]

(40)[32]

(4)[4]

4 12 20

8804

(4)

(4)(4)[4]

(4) [4]

1

16 28 28 [12]

[4]

1724

4

(56)[4]

(4)[24]

(124) [212](28) [20]

(180) [100](4) [4]

(24)[12]

(4)[4]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

900

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 1 OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 521 amp 5222018SCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 30: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

N

18 0

0

3 (23)

3

70 4 [12](38)[40]

(4)[2]

(0) [0]

(54)[65]

(0)[0]

210

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

0 12 0

004

(0)

(5)(2)[4]

(3) [7]

2

7 42 21 [15]

[0]

02

0

(26)[24]

(9)[12]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(46)[44]

(0)[0]

0 6 0

004

(0)

(32)(3)[4]

(5) [7]

1

6 21 15 [15]

[0]

02

0

(5)[12]

(18)[8]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(0) [0](0) [0]

(9)[22]

(0)[0]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

980

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 2 ATS TIS ESTIMATED SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 31: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

N

28 5

15

13 (33)

3

121 9 [22](63)[80]

(9)[7]

(61) [20]

(89)[101]

(5)[5]

6560

PROJECT

LOCATION

1

2

10 32 10

5259

(5)

(10)(22)[9]

(8) [12]

2

12 118 36 [35]

[5]

57

5

(97)[75]

(25)[17]

(5) [20](5) [5]

(25) [15](5) [10]

(97)[84]

(5)[5]

5 21 25

10102

9

(5)

(37)(8)[9]

(10) [12]

1

27 57 50 [31]

[5]

2187

5

(76)[17]

(24)[39]

(157) [269](36) [25]

(229) [127](5) [5]

(40)[37]

(5)[5]

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave3

Cascade Ave

223

0

20

20

191

Gibbon Ave

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 3 ATS TIS PROJECTED 2026 TOTAL TRAFFICSCALE 1 = 1200

LEGEND

WEEKDAYAM PEAK HOUR

TURNINGMOVEMENTS

WEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR

XX

(XX)

WEEKDAYPM PEAK HOUR[XX]

ESTIMATED AVGWEEKDAY TRAFFIC

XXX

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 32: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 4 2018 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 33: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

C

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

Ha

yd

en

St

Grayling Ave

De Lacy Ave

Cascade Ave

20

Gibbon Ave

B

A

A

B

B

A

B

A

A

A

A

N

engineerssurveyorsplannersscientists

2880 Technology Boulevard WestBozeman MT 59718

Phone (406) 587-0721wwwm-mnet

FIG 5 2026 TRAFFIC LOS SUMMARYSCALE 1 = 500

LEGEND

WEEKDAY AMPEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY SCHOOLPM PEAK HOUR LOSWEEKDAY PMPEAK HOUR LOS

A

A

A

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOURLEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 34: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 355 5 10 165 5 5 15 20 20 30 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec) 41 41 71 65 62 71 65 62

Critical Headway (sec) 413 413 713 653 623 713 653 623

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 22 22 35 40 33 35 40 33

Follow-Up Headway (sec) 223 223 353 403 333 353 403 333

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 10 40 80

Capacity c (vehh) 1400 1192 518 520

vc Ratio 000 001 008 015

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 03 05

Control Delay (sveh) 76 80 125 132

Level of Service LOS A A B B

Approach Delay (sveh) 01 05 125 132

Approach LOS B B

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 51010 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 35: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2018 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 5 205 5 20 435 15 5 15 5 25 5 5

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 5 20 25 35

Capacity c (vehh) 1104 1353 392 355

vc Ratio 000 001 006 010

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 02 03

Control Delay (sveh) 83 77 148 163

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 05 148 163

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52009 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2018-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 36: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 10 450 5 10 210 10 5 25 25 50 60 30

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 10 10 55 140

Capacity c (vehh) 1342 1099 418 373

vc Ratio 001 001 013 037

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 00 05 17

Control Delay (sveh) 77 83 149 203

Level of Service LOS A A B C

Approach Delay (sveh) 02 04 149 203

Approach LOS B C

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 52224 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-AM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 37: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control ReportGeneral Information Site Information

Analyst T Eastwood Intersection Hayden amp US 20

AgencyCo Morrison-Maierle Jurisdiction MDT

Date Performed 4162019 EastWest Street US Highway 20

Analysis Year 2026 NorthSouth Street Hayden Street

Time Analyzed Weekday PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 100

Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025

Project Description Peaking Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

Lanes

Major Street East-West

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume V (vehh) 15 265 5 25 555 35 5 40 5 40 20 10

Percent Heavy Vehicles () 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade () 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median TypeStorage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up HeadwaysBase Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay Queue Length and Level of ServiceFlow Rate v (vehh) 15 25 50 70

Capacity c (vehh) 980 1286 265 238

vc Ratio 002 002 019 029

95 Queue Length Q₉₅ (veh) 00 01 07 12

Control Delay (sveh) 87 79 217 263

Level of Service LOS A A C D

Approach Delay (sveh) 06 05 217 263

Approach LOS C D

Copyright copy 2019 University of Florida All Rights Reserved HCS7trade TWSC Version 74 Generated 4162019 53236 PMHayden+US-20_Weekday-PM_2026-Peaking-Analysisxtw

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 38: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

DESIGN REPORT

WATER amp SANITARY SEWER

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Robert Yeakey

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade MT 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

July 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 39: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot minor subdivision located on Tract 1 and

Lot 1 Block 2 of the Madison Addition to the Town of West Yellowstone according to the official

plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder Gallatin County

Montana (Plat No J-120) and located in Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Gallatin County Montana The subject property is zoned R-4 This project will require connection

to existing Town of West Yellowstone water and sanitary sewer systems

WATER amp SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT

The water and sanitary sewer mains will connect to the existing 8rdquo mains located within Hayden

Street A street cut will be required in Hayden Street to make these connections The mains will

loop through the proposed Moonrise Meadows Loop outside of the paved road section to provide

service for the proposed buildings

WATER SYSTEM DEMAND

The water demand numbers used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ 1

Input Data

Fire-Flow Water requirements are included in the Appendix F of the preliminary plat application

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 40: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

The proposed subdivision demands will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos master

water model to confirm adequate pressure and capacity exist within the system

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMAND

The wastewater generation rates used herein are according to the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality Circular DEQ 4 The peaking factor for the design area is determined by

figuring the equivalent population and inserting the population into the Harmon Formula Using

the DEQ standard of 25 persons per household the equivalent population is calculated The peak

flow rate is then calculated by multiplying the DEQrsquos design generation rate of 100 gallons per

capita per day by the population multiplying by the peaking factor and adding the infiltration rate

The proposed subdivision generation rates will be analyzed by the Town Engineer in the Townrsquos

master sanitary sewer model to confirm adequate capacity exists within the system

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 41: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

bigcountrylandscapescom 120 Buckskin Rd Belgrade MT 59714 Office (406) 388-2728

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 42: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

DESIGN REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

MOONRISE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

Prepared for

Yeakey Family Trust

11760 Gee Norman Road Belgrade Montana 59714

Prepared by

CampH Engineering and Surveying Inc

1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman MT 59718

(406) 587-1115

Project Number 171283

August 2018 (Updated April 2019)

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 43: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

INTRODUCTION

The proposed Moonrise Meadows Subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision located on a 21029-acre tract

of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 27 Township 13 South Range 5 East of PMM

Town of West Yellowstone Gallatin County Montana The subject property is bordered on the

north and west by vacant US Forest Service land and by the existing Maddison Addition

Subdivsion to the east and south The site generally slopes to the northwest at approximately 03

Since the adjacent upslope property is the existing Madison Addition Subdivision with its own

stormwater infrastructure it is not anticipated that a significant amount of off-site flow enters the

site Therefore this design analyzes The pre- and post-development runoff from the subject

property only

Site grading channelized flow and retention ponds will be used to manage stormwater runoff A

Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix A Calculations for each individual drainage area

(total area and weighted C factor) are included in Appendix B

RETENTION POND DESIGN

Retention ponds have been sized according to Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Circular 8 Retention ponds are sized to capture the entire volume of the 2-year 24-hour storm

event with I = 125 inches per the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8

Spreadsheet for the closest meteorological station (West Yellowstone Gateway) (See Appendix

C) This calculation is conservative as DEQ Circular 8 only requires the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff to be retained by stormwater facilities and we are not subtracting the

pre-development runoff from the volume to be retained In addition to retaining the entire 2-year

storm event the onsite facilities have been sized to retain the difference in pre- and

post-development runoff during a 10-year storm event Calculations used for sizing each pond

can be found in Appendix B Design pond capacities were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D

Retention Pond 1

Retention Pond 1 is located in the Common Open Space 1 Easement directly south of Moonrise

Meadows Loop It receives runoff from Drainage Area 1 with a total area of 1229 acres Runoff

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 44: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

from Drainage Area 1 is conveyed via surface flow channelized flow parallel to Moonrise

Meadows Loop and culverts to Retention Pond 1 The required volume of the pond is 27605

cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event The proposed pond is designed to store 29204 cubic

feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2 feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond

volume can be found in Appendix B

Retention Pond 2

Retention Pond 2 is located on the northern portion of Common Open Space 2 Easement The

pond receives runoff from Drainage Area 2 with a total area of 962 acres The runoff is conveyed

via surface flow and channelized flow to proposed Retention Pond 2 near the south end of the

property The required volume for the pond is 20001 cubic feet based on the 2-year storm event

The proposed pond is designed to store 22476 cubic feet The pond has 31 side slopes and is 2

feet deep Supporting calculations for the required pond volume can be found in Appendix B A

12-foot all-seasonal gravel road will provide access to the proposed pond for maintenance

10-Year Storm Event

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires conveyance structures to

transmit post-development peak flow during a 10-year storm event The time of concentration for

the largest drainage area (Drainage Area 1) is calculated using the spreadsheet provided by the

DEQ (See Appendix C) The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve based on the West Yellowstone

Gateway meteorological station is then used to find the design intensity for a 10-year storm event

A design intensity of 092 inches per hour is used for sizing conveyance facilities within the

proposed subdivision In addition to the adequately sized conveyance facilities the retention

ponds are also designed to retain the difference between pre- and post-development runoff during

a 10-year storm event which is not required by DEQ Circular 8 A design intensity of 187 inches

per hour was used based on the nearest rainfall station available from DEQ 8 Appendix A which

is Hebgen Dam (See Appendix C) Supporting calculations for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall

event along the proposed roadside ditch and through proposed PVC culverts are included in

Appendix B

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 45: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

100-Year Storm Event

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular 8 requires that discharge from retention

facilities may not inundate buildings or drainfields during a 100-year storm event During a 100-

year storm event excess runoff from Retention Pond 1 will back up in the adjacent open space lot

and flow in to the proposed roadside ditches and overflow onto the southeast corner of Lot 4 From

there it will follow an existing historical flow path westerly to the US Forest Service land to the

west

Retention Pond 2 is designed to retain difference in the pre- and post-development runoff

volume In the event of a storm larger than the 10-year event excess runoff in Retention Pond 2

will be routed through an outlet structure at the southwest corner of the pond and into the existing

30rdquo RCP drain pipe running along the southern edge of the property This existing stormwater pipe

discharges on to the US Forest Service land to the west In the event of a 100-year storm excess

runoff in Retention Pond 2 would by pass this outlet structure and overtop the pond It would then

flow downhill to the west onto the existing US Forest Service land

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 46: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

APPENDIX A

DRAINAGE AREA MAP

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 47: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

APPENDIX B

DRAINAGE AREA AND POND SIZING

CALCULATIONS

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 48: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Return to Summary

Rainfall Intensity for DEQ 8

1 Location Data

Latitude 44660805

Longitude -1111131

Distance to closest station (km) 124

Closest meteorological station WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

2-hour 24-hour precipitation (in) 125

2 Pre-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 300 0007 04 na 210 12592

Shallow Forest with heavy ground litter 346 0002 0202 011 089 5316

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

3 Post-development Hydraulic Path

Flow Type Surface Description Flow Length (ft) Land Slope (ftft)Culvert Diameter

(in)

Depth of Flow in

Channel (in) or

Culvert (in)

Channel - Top

Width (ft)

Channel - Bottom

Width (ft)

Cross Sectional

Flow Area (ft^2)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)n

Average

Velocity (fts)Tt (hr) Tt (min)

Sheet Light Underbrush 143 0004 04 na 145 8707

Shallow Paved 200 0005 0012 289 002 115

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 392 0006 9 8 300 1607 0085 044 025 1473

Culvert PVC 38 0005 12 6 039 157 001 418 000 015

Channel_Triangular Vegetation 31 0007 9 8 300 1607 0085 048 002 108

Culvert PVC 60 0004 12 6 039 157 001 374 000 027

Appendix F httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044171pdf

4 Time of Concentration and Rainfall Intensity (24-hour storm event)

Pre-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 17908

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 058

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 102

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 165

Post-development Path

Total Time of Concentration (min) 10446

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 2 Year 049

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 10 Year 092

Rainfall Intensity (inhr) 100 Year 152

000

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Rai

nfa

ll In

ten

sity

in In

che

s p

er

Ho

ur

Duration in Minutes

Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency Curve for

2-yr 10-yr 100-yr Pre-development Time of Concentration Post-development Time of Concentration

WEST YELLOWSTONE GATEWAY

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 49: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

RETENTION POND 1

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 760

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 27605

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 307

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 11151

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16454

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 50: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

RETETNTION POND 2

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 551

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 20001

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 125 (2-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 241

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 8735

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 11267

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 51: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

RENTENTION POND 1 - 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 1138

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 41297

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 460

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 16682

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 24615

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 52: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

RETENTION POND 2- 10 YEAR

REQUIRED VOLUME

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 824

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 29922

3 Calculate Volume-Pre-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 020

I = intensity (in) 187 (10-yr 24 hour)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 360

V = REQUIRED VOL (ft3) 13067

Pre-development vs Post-development (ft3) 16855

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 53: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

FLOWRATE- DA 1

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 210607 200077

Landscape 02 324645 64929

Total 535252 265006

(DA 1)

C=Weighted C Factor 050

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 050

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 1229

Q = runoff (cfs) 560

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 54: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

FLOWRATE- DA 2

1 Calculate Weighted C Factor for Right-of-Way

Component Width C

ROW Hardscape 48 095

ROW Landscape 16 02

Weighted C Factor = 076

1 Calculate Area and Weighted C Factor

Contributing Area C Area (ft2) C Area

Hardscape 095 145688 137002

Landscape 02 270408 55009

Total 419258 192011

(DA 2)

C=Weighted C Factor 046

2 Calculate Required Volume-Post-Development

Q = CIA

V=(43560ft21 Acre) (1 ft12 in) Q

C = Weighted C Factor 046

I = intensity (inhr) 092

(ToC DEQ 8

Spreadsheet)

A = Area (acres) 962

Q = runoff (cfs) 406

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 55: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Drainage Area 1

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0919744 ft

Q= 560 ft3s

Area= 4513057 ft2

PWETTED 9987224 ft

QCALC= 5600018 ft3s

v= 1240848 fts

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 56: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Drainage Area 2

d

ƟB ƟA

W

n= 005 mannings

s= 0005 slope of channel

ƟA= 946 deg

ƟB= 1209 deg

W= 0 ft

d= 0815262 ft

Q= 406 ft3s

Area= 3545936 ft2

PWETTED 8852682 ft

QCALC= 4060095 ft3s

v= 1145 fts

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 57: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 1

Q(cfs) 560

INPUT

D= 18 inches

d= 1688297 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

172 396 044 399 687 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 58: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

MANNINGS EQUATION FOR PIPE FLOW-DA 2

Q(cfs) 406

INPUT

D= 15 inches

d= 1406916 inches

Mannings Formula n= 0013 mannings coeff

θ= 577 degrees

Q=(1486n)ARh23

S12

S= 00037 slope inin

R=AP

A=cross sectional area

P=wetted perimeter V=(149n)Rh23

S12

S=slope of channel Q=V x A

n=Mannings roughness coefficient

Solution to Mannings Equation

Areaft2

Wetted

Perimeter ft

Hydraulic

Radius ft velocity fts flow cfs PVC 0013

120 330 036 354 423 PE (lt9dia) 0015

PE (gt12dia) 002

PE(9-12dia) 0017

CMP 0025

ADS N12 0012

HCMP 0023

Conc 0013

Mannings n-values

d

θ

D

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 59: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

APPENDIX C

RAINFALL AND INTENSITY FOR DEQ 8

DEQ 8 APPENDIX A RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 60: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Circular DEQ-8 Page 23 of 70

APPENDIX A - RAINFALL DATA

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 61: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Circular DEQ-8 Page 24 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ALZADA

160

250

379 ASHLAND RANGER STATION 119 198 311 AUGUSTA 164 258 394 BAYLOR 159 249 379 BELGRADE 2NW 113 180 275 BILLINGS LOGAN INTL AP 142 221 348 BLOOMFIELD 5 NNE 159 249 377 BOULDER 104 160 240 BOZEMAN GALLATIN FLD 113 180 371 BREDETTE 155 244 298 BRIDGER 2 N 120 193 382 BROADUS 151 246 387 BROWNING 164 256 231 BUTTE BERT MOONEY AP 115 179 279 CAMERON 106 157 380 CARDWELL 119 185 326 CHOTEAU 150 245 405 COHAGEN 130 211 312 CONTENT 4 NNE 166 264 279 COOKE CITY 2 W 120 199 254 CORWIN SPRINGS 100 174 338 CUSTER 135 212 268 CUT BANK MUNI AP 141 232 276 DARBY 119 175 364 DECKER 138 221 313 DILLON 9 SSE 111 175 263 DILLON AP 105 165 461 DIVIDE 116 182 277 DODSON 1 WNW 157 242 368 DOVETAIL 125 202 290 DRUMMOND FAA AP 101 168 396 EKALAKA 181 296 417 ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS 116 182 414 ESSEX 160 245 400 EUREKA RS 136 199 363 FROID 159 257 268 GIBSON DAM 200 289 453

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 62: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Circular DEQ-8 Page 25 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

GLASGOW INTL AP

182

290

365 GLENDIVE 169 269 317 GREAT FALLS INTL AP 168 258 326 HAUGAN 1 W 192 277 411 HAVRE CITY CO AP 160 249 368 HAYS 148 236 294 HEBGEN DAM 130 187 458 HELENA RGNL AP 125 190 304 HIGHWOOD 216 314 332 HILGER 150 239 280 HOLTER DAM 137 211 260 ILIAD 133 213 299 ISMAY 168 268 295 JOPLIN 145 237 405 KALISPELL GLACIER AP 132 199 279 KINGS HILL 210 312 410 LAKEVIEW 146 211 250 LAVINA 118 206 349 LEWISTOWN MUNI AP 163 253 351 LIBBY 131 192 300 LIMA 117 176 335 LINCOLN RS 131 200 472 LIVINGSTON 110 186 290 LODGE GRASS 150 255 322 LOGAN LANDFILL 116 183 260 LOLO HOT SPRINGS 193 282 293 LONEPINE 120 173 339 MARTINSDALE 3 NNW 145 229 411 MILES CITY 143 228 428 MILLEGAN 14 SE 129 199 262 MISSOULA INTL AP 126 190 349 MOLT 6 SW 132 216 340 NEIHART 215 320 392 OVANDO 131 196 305 PHILIPSBURG RS 149 220 340 PLAINS RS 120 178 252 POLEBRIDGE 139 202 382 REEDPOINT 138 221 375 RESERVE 14 W 165 266 380 RIDGE 2 WSW 181 283 338

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)
Page 63: From: Daniel Sabolsky Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Moonrise Meadows) are the result of the ‘Madison Addition Master Plan” approved by the Town. In December 1982 the Town and the property

Circular DEQ-8 Page 26 of 70

Table 1 Stations with ID Number Shown on the Station Map (continued)

Name

2yr-24hr

10yr-24hr

100yr-24hr

ROUND BUTTE 1 NNW

121

179

346 RUSSELL 139 225 285 SAINT REGIS 1 NE 160 234 373 SCOBEY 160 255 320 SEELEY LAKE RS 137 206 -010 SHELBY 133 218 308 SILVERSTAR 113 170 355 SIMMS 1 NE 145 242 364 STANFORD 153 244 259 SUMMIT 170 256 391 SWAN LAKE 160 233 329 TERRY 21 NNW 140 225 388 TOWNSEND 12 ENE 124 190 266 UTICA 156 245 335 VANANDA 6 NE 128 207 383 WEST GLACIER 163 239 323 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 133 205 271 WHITEHALL MONTANA 109 174 362 WILLOW CREEK (1) 153 236 250 WINNETT 12 SW 153 240 388 WISDOM 097 164 282 WOLF POINT 170 261 281 YELLOWTAIL DAM 135 215 443 ZORTMAN 165 257 377

  • DS email
  • Yeakey Letter (002)
  • MOONRISE EMAIL
  • 4-30-2019 Moonrise Meadows Repose WYT April 1 2019 Ltr (002)
  • Exhibit A WYT Letter DEQ 1996) (002)
  • Exhibit B - Amended Plat Lot 12 4-23-19 (1) (002)
  • Exhibit B1 Moonrise Meadows_Landscape Plan (002)
  • Exhibit C MM Moonrise-Meadows Traffic Report (002)
  • Exhibit D Moonrise Water Sewer Design Report (002)
  • Exhibit E Moonrise Stormwater Design Report (002)

Recommended