HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecreation - Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
(S _
fift- W •
if
URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS
w T■ MI MO�Sv �, - 118
R r� E N arc a�ectur
.0 Ml ME,INC. ASSOCIATES
,,ff
� A / A.e Empf�rzr CFi.�rr: [a,nna; .
m M YY
234
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
Urban Design Analysis
MDT:
The MDT site is 1 mile away from the approximate geographic center of development of
Bozeman (7th and Main). The site is 1.5 miles away from the center of population of Bozeman
(Sl6th and Olive).
Transportation /Access: The site is served by Streamline's Blue Line with a stop on Tamarack and
Rouse. A new bus shelter and improved stop facilities would be warranted for the Aquatics
project.
The site is served on three sides by relatively high volume streets, Rouse on the east, Oak on the
north and Tamarack to the south. Rouse, north of Oak is slated for reconstruction in 2016.
Reconstruction of Rouse south of Oak is an unscheduled project. Reconstruction of Rouse will
improve vehicular and multi modal access to the site. Construction of Rouse might have an
impact on operation at this site particularly when the site's frontage is being reconstructed.
Impacts on traffic may require a traffic study for this site. Access from the interstate is excellent
using the 7'hAvenue interchange. The property is visible from 1 -90 which could attract more
regional use of the facility.
Pedestrian facilities are well developed in the residential areas to the south of the site.
In general the MDT site has the best transportation access of the three sites.
Surrounding Uses: The County Fairgrounds and Gallatin County Search and Rescue are
immediately to the west of the site. Many fairgrounds sited in urban areas are developing into
year -round regional recreational hubs. This pattern matches available community -owned land
with expanding demand for recreational opportunities. The fairgrounds land could allow future
expansion of community recreational facilities in close proximity to the MDT site. The Fairgrounds
Board has expressed a willingness to explore shared parking arrangements on their site.
The City Shops, including the Parks and Recreation maintenance facility, is immediately across
Tamarack to the south. Further south is small block traditional pattern residential development.
The small block residential pattern supports bicycle and pedestrian use well and ensures good
multimodal access between surrounding residents and the facility.
Highway and rail- oriented commercial uses predominate in the areas to the east of the site.
There are a few residences near the northeast corner of Rouse and Tamarack. These are the
only residences facing the site.
To the north of the site the recently completed shopping center on Oak includes a fitness gym
and small indoor pool. The owner of this facility has expressed support for locating the Aquatics
facility on the MDT site.
W
235
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
Rose Park:
The Rose Park site is 1.5 miles away from the approximate geographic center of development of
Bozeman (7th and Main). The site is 1.25 miles away from the center of population of Bozeman
(Sl6th and Olive).
Transportation /Access: Streamline has a stop on the Blue Line at 19th and Oak, .40 miles away.
The Red Line stops at 25th and Annie .30 miles away. Preliminary discussion with Streamline
indicates that they would consider providing service to the site but would need to analyze
routes and demand to see whether extending service to the site fits within their current budget.
A subsidy could be required for Streamline service to the site. A bus shelter and pull out would be
warranted at the Rose Park site if service were to be extended for the Aquatics facility.
Oak may require traffic calming at 25th and other crossing facilities to facilitate bicycle and
pedestrian access from the south.
Siting the Aquatics facility on the Rose Park site would require 25th Avenue to be extended
between Oak and Tschache on the west border of the site. 25th would provide local access to
the parcel. 1 -90 access is good from either the 19th Avenue interchange, or the 7th Avenue
interchange, and Oak.
Surrounding Uses: A disc golf course and walking trails are the primary current uses on Rose
Park.
To the south across Oak there is relatively high density residential development. The block
pattern of the residential development is somewhat less connective for bicycle and pedestrian
users than the small block pattern at MDT.
The site abutting the parcel to the west is owned by the Fellowship Baptist Church. The church is
early in the process of developing on the site.
To the east are a rest home, a shopping center, and one undeveloped property. Parcels across
Tschache on the north, and across 27th on the west, are undeveloped.
Most of the undeveloped parcels to the north and west of the site will likely have residential
development in the next 15 years.
YMCA:
The YMCA site is 2.4 miles away from the approximate geographic center of development of
Bozeman (7th and Main). The site is 2.0 miles away from the center of population of Bozeman
(Sl6th and Olive).
Transportation Access: The site is not currently served by Streamline. The Yellow Line's nearest
stop is at Yellowstone and Durston, approximately 1.0 mile away. The Red Line stops at Annie
W
236
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
and Buckrake approximately 1.1 miles away from the site. A preliminary conversation with
Streamline indicates that they would consider extending service to the YMCA site. Streamline
would need to analyze routes and demand to see whether extending service to the site fits
within their current budget. A subsidy could be required for Streamline service to the site. A bus
shelter and pull out would be warranted at the YMCA site if service were to be extended for the
Aquatics facility.
Primary vehicular access to the site is from Baxter and Oak. Local access to the site would be
from Vaquero Parkway, a new road connecting Oak and Baxter via Davis Lane.
Pedestrian facilities are limited in the relatively rural context except for sidewalks in recent
subdivisions.
Access from 1 -90 is good with service from the 19th interchange and Baxter.
Surrounding Uses: The YMCA parcel is surrounded on the west, south, and north by the Gallatin
County Regional Park. The park is a destination for walking and swimming.
To the east the parcel fronts Vaquero and a partially developed residential subdivision beyond.
The new Fire Station and Emergency Services facility is further south along Vaquero.
The site is at the western edge of the urbanized area of Bozeman - there are a mix of
agricultural parcels and residential subdivisions beyond the immediately adjacent parcels.
Other Factors: Future residential development is anticipated moving west.
W
237
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
O Possible Site 1/2 mile radius ® Existing Bus Stop
O Public School Center of Population TIF District
(Source: Sonoran Institute & City GIS data)
PROXIMITY INFORMATION
238
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
(S _
fift- W •
NEVA
if
ZONING & DEVELOPMENT
w T■ MI MO�Sv �, - 118
R r� E N arc a�ectur
.0 11lOJEME,INC. ASSOCIATES
��,,ff RAJ A.efmpf ,,'rz;(F.r:':C;nnof -,
m M YY
239
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
Zoning & Development
MDT:
Zoning: Public Lands & Institutions (PLI), Class II Entryway Corridor (25 ft setback from property or
roadway easement), Design Review Board (DRB) review required, multiple parcels need to be
aggregated and alleys vacated. Publically Owned Community Center is permitted use. Site is
adjacent to Northeast Urban Renewal District and approximately 0.5 mile from North Seventh
Urban Renewal District.
Community Plan Land Use: Public Institutions
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST): Proposed Bike Lanes at Rouse & Tamarack,
Proposed Shared -Use Path at Oak and bisecting the Fairgrounds (within 1/8 mile)
Public Schools: Hawthorne Elementary (1/2 mile), Whittier (3/4 mile).
Wetlands: None.
Water Table: No known concerns.
Rose Park:
Zoning: Residential Medium Density (R -3). Not an entry way corridor. Community Center is
allowed Conditional Use (permit required).
Community Plan Land Use: Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST): Proposed Bike Lane at Tschache, 27th, and 19th
Proposed Shared Use Path at Oak & Tschache. Proposed Trail Corridors at east edge of
property. Dedicated open space (Stoneridge Development) at east edge of property.
Public Schools: Emily Dickenson (1/4 mile)
Wetlands: Present, delineation required. 1 AC of cash -in -lieu of mitigation assumed.
Water Table: 3 to 6 feet - some flooding.
YMCA:
Zoning: Residential Medium Density (R -3). Not an entry way corridor. Community Center is
allowed Conditional Use (permit required). Adjacent to Public Lands & Institutions (PLI).
Community Plan Land Use: Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST): Proposed Bike Lane at Baxter. Proposed Shared
Use Path at west edge of property.
Public Schools: Chief Joseph Middle School (1 /2 mile)
Wetlands: Present, updated delineation required. 1 AC of cash -in -lieu of mitigation assumed.
Water Table: 4 to 5 feet near west edge of property, 3 to 6 feet - rare flooding.
1. MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
MMW 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
10
240
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
S
( _
fift- W •
NEVA
if
PROJECT AREA AND SITE DIAGRAM
w rr� IM MORRISO N R O E N arc aPCtur CIS
, ■0 4 ,INC ASSOCIATES
mmw
241
Preliminary Program
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Family Aquatics Center
November 20, 2013
MMW
Preliminary Program
MacArthur, Means Wells Architects, P.C.
242
Gross
Building Function
Area
Indoor - Outdoor Facility
Natatorium
21,100
Locker Rooms 4,700
Staff
1,560
Public Toilets and Shower
350
Entry
2,000
Mezzanine Seating
2,000
Maintenance /Storage
250
Indoor /Outdoor Pool Mechanical
2,600
Mechanical & Electrical Rooms
1,600
Community Room with Divider
1,000
Walls & Circulation
3,500
TOTAL
40,660
Outdoor Water & Deck Area
32,000
Outdoor Buildings
950
TOTAL
32,950
Aquatics Parking and Site Development
Area
# Spaces
400 SF /spot
Zoning Parking Calculations
Recreation Center
73,610
at 85% gross
62,568.5
1 space/ 312.8
125,200
200 SF
Transit Availability Adjustment
312.8
spaces
at
907o 281.6
112,800
Future Expansion
30,000
at 85% gross
25,500.0
1 space/ 127.5
51,200
200 SF
Transit Availability Adjustment
127.5
spaces
at
907. 114.8
46,000
YMCA Building and Site Area
Area
# Spaces
400 SF /spot
Zoning Parking Calculations
Recreation Center Building Area
35,000
at 85% gross
29,750.0
1 space/ 148.8
59,600
200 SF
Transit Availability Adjustment
148.8
at 907. 133.9
53,600
AQUATICS - Building and Site Area
Area (SF)
Acres
Aquatics Building Area
40,660
0.933
Aquatics - Outdoor Pools & Decks
32,950
0.756
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
25,764
SUBTOTAL - AQUATICS - BUILDINGS & POOLS
99,374
2.281
AQUATICS - Parking (w/ Transit Adjustment)
112,800
2.590
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
39,480
SUBTOTAL - AQUATICS - PARKING
152,280
3.496
AQUATICS - Future Expansion Potential
30,000
0.689
Required Additional Parking for Building Expansion
(w/ Transit Adjustment)
46,000
1.056
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
26,600
SUBTOTAL - AQUATICS - FUTURE EXPANSION
102,600
2.355
TOTAL AQUATICS SITE AREA all the above
354,254
8.133
YMCA Building Area
35,000
0.803
YMCA Parking (w/ Transit Adjustment)
53,600
1.230
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
31,010
Outdoor Fields & Future Expansion
TOTAL Y SITE AREA excludes fields & expansion)
119,610
2.746
TOTAL COMBINED SITE AREA - Y & AQUATICS
473,864
10.878
Preliminary Program
MacArthur, Means Wells Architects, P.C.
242
m
D
D
D
n
U)
27 ==28
EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS 28
-AND- FIRE 30
& RESCUE
FACILITY
3
I N_
m
In
m
AQUATICS
L PROPERTY LINE
28
489 SPACES
TOTAL
8 8 8 31
UNDERGROUND RETENTION 18 SECURE
PARKING
5
22 22 22 21 18
13 5
7 T
rn �
zy
� T
z 22 22 22 21 CITY OF BOZEMAN
POLICE STATION &
MUNICIPAL COURTS
6 7 6 I-
I PUBLIC ENTRY
NORTH ROUSE AVENUE
I
I
m
D
D7 I
i
of
c I
� I
I I
I
�I
BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
MDT SITE LAYOUT
MMW
243
PARKING TABULATION
REQD FOR POLICE STATION...... 240
AND MUNICIPAL COURTS **
REQD FOR AQUATICS *. * ..............220
TOTAL NEEDED ............................460
TOTAL PROVIDED ........................489
* *PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE - FINAL
PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY
+ / -10 %.
1 If = 100' =4
12
w
Q
2
N
Z
WEST OAK STREET
M M 1N
I
\�I
Lu > O
Q Z
X
N Lu
Z
23
Fm7ffffH
26
11111 liLLLLI]
26 MAIN NTRY
�o
SD
OC'
Q
PROPERTY LINE
RETENTION
BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
ROSE PARK SITE LAYOUT
244
230 SPACE;
TOTAL
Q
J
W
O >
� O
PARKING TABULATION
REQD FOR AQUATICS *. .. ..............220
TOTAL NEEDED ...........................220
TOTAL PROVIDED ........................230
"PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE - FINAL
PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY
+ / -10`0
1 It = 100'
13
TRAIL SYSTEM
15
o�
30
/ 15
Q� 30
P
30
F\3
, ez
300 SPACES
AQUATICS
/
QP��
O
OWN
FOOTBALL FIELD
1p/ T� N
O� NF
20
10
YMCA U UIIII1►1ii 1111''L-3
20 10
22
SHARED
20 10
22 I
ip
RETENTION
BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
YMCA SITE LAYOUT
245
I �
O
Io
Im
PARKING TABULATION
REQD FOR YMCA .......................
220
REQD FOR AQUATICS *: * .............
220
TOTAL NEEDED ...........................
440
TOTAL PROVIDED .......................450
"PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
- FINAL
PARKING REQUIRED MAY
VARY
+ / -10%
1 " = 100' ==+
14
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
ra f
C
;.S_
fift- W •
NEVA
if
SITE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING COSTS
w T�► �:o�uusvN R r.� E N - CIS
ON M"RiJNC, ASSOCIATES Q i�� t eCtur'_
,,ff
A / A.E piny -0.-d Cwnp -y
m M YY
246
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
Site Development Narrative
Overview:
Based on the preliminary project program, the building and outdoor aquatics facilities require
approximately 2.3 acres of site area. Current zoning requires approximately 280 parking spaces
for the program, assuming Streamline bus service is available at or near the project site. Parking
to accommodate the current preliminary program requires approximately 3.5 acres of site area.
Future expansion for either indoor or outdoor leisure pools or an outdoor 50m pool requires
approximately 2.3 acres of site area to accommodate the new pools and parking required.
Approximately 8.1 acres of site area is required to accommodate current program areas and
potential future expansion.
MDT:
Size of Parcel: The City is considering locating the City of Bozeman Police Station and Municipal
Court Facility on the MDT site. The site is a tight fit for both projects. To meet the total parking
demand for both projects, approximately 170 spaces would need to be provided on the
adjacent County Fairgrounds site. Any future expansion of either facility would require
relocating even more parking to the Fairgrounds site. Since high ground water is not anticipated
on the MDT site storm water retention could be provided below parking areas to free up more
site area for other purposes. The site would fit the Aquatics facility comfortably if the Police
Station /Court Facility were located elsewhere.
Other Factors: Community concern over the incompatibility of law enforcement uses with an
adjacent aquatics facility can be mitigated through careful site planning. Site design can also
mitigate traffic safety concerns.
Rose Park:
Size of Parcel: Rose Park is the only one of the three sites that is clearly big enough for all of the
requirements of the Aquatics project without relying on parking agreements with other adjacent
owners. However, a joint use parking arrangement with Fellowship Baptist Church could prove
mutually beneficial and would reduce project costs.
Wetlands /High Ground Water: Wetlands bisect the site from the southwest corner to the
northeast corner. As the site is quite large, with some portions of the site lower in elevation than
the likely Aquatics facility location, it is feasible to address impacts to riparian resources on site.
The site has high ground water and likely also has expansive soils. There is a significant cost to
construct pools that extend below expected annual high ground water levels particularly in
expansive soils. Further wetlands and geotechnical investigation are warranted on the site to
reach an accurate cost estimate.
El. MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
MMW 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
15
247
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
Other Factors: There is a large borrow pile in the southeast corner of the parcel where the
aquatics facility could be located.
Utility easements along Oak will require buildings to setback 50' from the right of way.
Portions of the disc golf course would need to be relocated to accommodate the Aquatics
facility. The relocation could happen on site - or possibly on the Stoneridge Development's
adjacent dedicated open space if suitable agreement could be reached.
YMCA:
Size of Parcel: The site would be shared by the Aquatics facility and a new, 40,000 square foot,
YMCA facility. Over time the YMCA anticipates both developing playing fields and expansion of
their indoor facility at this location. The Aquatics /YMCA building, the outdoor Aquatics facility,
and 150 -180 parking spaces fit on the YMCA site. The additional 260 -290 parking spaces required
for the joint facility would need to be located off -site, either on leased land or in the County
Park. The Aquatics facility should anticipate no future expansion if located on this site. The
YMCA's future expansion at this location will be constrained by sharing the site with the Aquatics
facility. Each project will need to make concessions to insure the most important individual
project goals are maintained.
The Gallatin County Regional Park master plan identifies a parking area along Vaquero to serve
the future requirements of the Park. This parking area would be the best location for off -site
parking to serve the Aquatics /YMCA facility. However, sharing this parking area may not meet
total demand for the Regional Park and the Aquatics /YMCA facility. In addition parking in this
lot would be up to Y4 mile distant from the front door of the Aquatics facility /YMCA building. This
is pushing the limit of acceptable proximity. Future expansion of the YMCA facilities would
require additional parking on County land. (The YMCA has a 60 year lease with the County for
16 acres of additional land surrounding their parcel. The original intent of this lease was to allow
the YMCA to create playing fields surrounding their facility.)
On -site storm water retention will further limit development potential on the site. Subsurface
storm water management is likely not an option due to high groundwater.
Wetlands /High Ground Water: Riparian areas are potentially present on the site. On -site
mitigation may not be feasible but mitigation on adjacent leased land is probably acceptable
to address impacts to this resource. The site has high ground water and likely also has expansive
soils. There is a significant cost to construct pools that extend below expected annual high
groundwater levels particularly in expansive soils. Further wetlands and geotechnical
investigation are warranted on the site to reach an accurate cost estimate.
W
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
16
248
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Family Aquatics Center
Site First Cost Comparison ) (
November 14, 2013
MMW
Site Variances
Approximate Cost Information
Least - Expensive Site
MDT
Approximate cost / (savings)
Rose park YMCA
Incremental cost to build aquatics facility to
accommodate future YMCA
$443,700
Utility/development cost variation
See Mor ison- Maierle Break -down
$769,110
$1,041,860
Water Table **
Locker rooms (built for Y)
Estimated additional building cost based on
water table elevations at surrounding sites
$400,000
$400,000
Subtotal -YMCA spaces
Wetlands remediation
$1,300,000
Shared savings not realized with phased construction
Assumes 1 acre disturbed
$50,000
$50,000
Streamline stipend for serving Y or Rose Park
$92,500
$0
$0
May be required; additional info from Streamline
required
$150,000
Complete exterior wall; accommodate future
addition
Y site combined facitliy cost reductions
$30,000
Shared community room
Shared lobby /entry sequence
$87,500
- $92,500
Shared locker rooms
$360,000
- $150,000
Reduce exterior wall
$1,660,000
- $30,000
Shared community room
Y site combined facility cost addtions
- $87,500
Fire area separation wall
$30,000
$50,000
Additional access control required
$20,000
Purchase or lease of land for facility/parking
$0
$0
May be required; additional info required from Y
and County
Total Site Development Cost
443,700
$1,219,110
$1,201,860
Relative site development cost
$0
$775,410
$758,160
MDT site cost = cost basis
Potential Cost Sharing - Site /Utility Development
$0
$164,660
$354,860
Assume cost share potential with adjacent
property owners
Incremental Cost with Cost Sharing
$0
$610,750
$403,300
Notes:
The costs estimated in this report are construction costs and do not reflect variations in soft costs.
Costs in the estimate assume providing the some amount of parking for each of the three sites.
All three sites could potentially benefit by sharing parking with other adjacent owners.
** Range of cost: $200,000 - $600,000. A geotechnical investigation is required to further refine the cost.
Y Site Phased Construction
Incremental cost to build aquatics facility to
accommodate future YMCA
Costs for building YMCA spaces
Lobby /entry sequence
$175,000
Locker rooms (built for Y)
$1,125,000
Subtotal -YMCA spaces
$1,300,000
Shared savings not realized with phased construction
Shared lobby /entry sequence
$92,500
Shared locker rooms
$150,000
Complete exterior wall; accommodate future
addition
$30,000
Shared community room
$87,500
Subtotal Phased Costs - shared costs
$360,000
Total Phased Costs - for Y Reimbursement
$1,660,000
Phased construction - Additional Cost
$30,000
Additional operational expense / ost revenue
during Y construction
Preliminary Program
MacArthur, Means Wells Architects, P.C.
17
249
MoisoN Bozeman Indoor /Outdoor Family Aquatic Center
l MAIERLE, INC, Siting Study -Site Development Narrative
An Employee -Owned Company
October 29, 2013
The following text and attached cost estimate describe differences in development needs and
associated cost differences between the three proposed sites for the Bozeman Aquatics facility.
Costs considered to be approximately equal for all three sites are not included.
In comparing the three sites, there are major differences in the amount of public infrastructure
required to develop each site. Because adjacent property owners stand to benefit from these
public improvements, the attached cost estimate has two tables. Table 1 summarizes relative
development costs based on the Aquatics Center bearing the full cost of the public
improvements; Table 2 summarizes relative development costs based on an assumed cost
share agreement It is assumed that during design development, there will be some negotiation
before arriving at a final agreement on funding for the public improvements.
MDT Site
Sanitary Sewer Service: The site has three existing services draining to a main in Rouse
Avenue. Existing services may be used if in good condition and large enough diameter; the
estimate assumes a street cut and a new 6" service line. A second service line may be needed if
a "gray water" system is used in the building.
Water Service: The site has three existing services supplied by a main in Rouse Avenue.
Existing services may be used if in good condition and large enough diameter; the estimate
assumes a street cut for a new 6" fire service and a 2" domestic service in the same trench.
Nearby fire hydrants are located on the east side of Rouse Avenue, on the south side of the
Tamarack Street intersection, and about 350 feet north of this intersection.
Street Improvements: With the exception of new approaches, no street improvements are
required. Depending on the timing, temporary approaches to the existing Rouse Avenue may be
required in advance of permanent connections to the proposed Rouse Street Widening project,
currently scheduled for 2016.
ALTA Survey and Demolition: The ALTA survey will be more detailed than the other two sites
due to the extensive asphalt, concrete and numerous buildings and other structures onsite.
Likewise, demolition of these items is a significant cost. MDT is exploring the possibility of
moving some of the buildings prior to the start of this project.
Grading and Storm Drainage: The site drains north, generally at about 1 percent, to a roadside
ditch on Oak Street. A feasible concept for storm runoff would be to run storm drain pipe and
surface runoff west to a ditch along the west property line, then discharge into a detention facility
at the north end of the site.
Electrical, Natural Gas and Communications: Three -phase electrical and natural gas utilities
exist along the east side of Rouse Avenue. Although unknown at this time, it is assumed that
communications lines (telephone and internet /TV cable) adjoin the property.
Page 1 of 3 18
250
Impact Fees: Re- development sites such as this can deduct the value of existing impacts based
on current impact fees. The estimate assumes a $106,000 deduction, which is half the total site
deduction. The estimate assumes that the other half will be applied to a future City Police /Courts
project currently proposed to share this site with the Aquatics Facility.
Environmental Permitting: It is assumed there will be no environmental permitting associated
with this site. The current property owner, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT),
has agreed to turn over an environmentally clean site, and there are no streams or wetlands
apparent on this currently industrial site.
Rose Park Site
Sanitary Sewer Service: The nearest, most accessible sewer main is at the intersection of
27th Avenue and Tschache Street. The estimate assumes an 8" sewer main extension will be
routed east under the paved Tschache Street (street cut required), then south in the future
25th Avenue alignment (road & utility easement). A 6" service will leave the street easement and
head southeast to the Aquatics Facility.
Water Service: The estimate assumes a street cut in Oak Street for a new 6" fire service and a
2" domestic service in the same trench. Because the nearest fire hydrant is at the 27th and Oak
Street intersection, a new fire hydrant assembly is included as the cost equivalent of a 100 -foot
water main extension.
Street Improvements: The City will require a looped road connection between Oak Street and
either 27th Avenue or Tschache Street, utilizing the existing road and utility easements for
25th Avenue. Due in part to the sewer main requirement, the most economical connection
appears to be construction of 25th Avenue all the way to Tschache Street. Half -width
construction may be acceptable to the City, but full width construction is assumed for improved
access to the facility.
ALTA Survey and Demolition: The ALTA survey and demolition are minimal due to the
undeveloped nature of the site.
Grading and Storm Drainage: The site drains north, generally at about 1.2 percent, to Tschache
Street. An existing irrigation ditch traverses the site and will need to be rerouted and partially
piped. A feasible concept for storm runoff would be to run storm drain pipe and surface runoff
north, then through one or more detention facilities north of the site improvements, and into the
existing irrigation ditch.
Electrical, Natural Gas and Communications: Three -phase electrical, natural gas and
communications lines (telephone and internet/TV cable) exist along the north side of Oak Street.
Impact Fees: Impact fees are required for new development and for redevelopment. There is no
cost reduction for re- development at this site, so the full cost of impact fees will be required.
Environmental Permitting: There are significant wetlands and streams near and within the
proposed development areas, and environmental permitting will be required. The City requires a
50 -foot setback from wetlands. Due to the location and extent of existing wetlands, the Rose
Park site assumes up to one acre of wetland impacts. Therefore, this site includes an additional
$50,000 cash -in -lieu for offsite mitigation (replacement) wetlands.
Page 2 of 3 19
251
YMCA Site
Sanitary Sewer Service: The nearest, most accessible sewer main is at the intersection of
Vaquero Parkway and Lolo Way. The estimate assumes an 8" sewer main extension will be
routed south in the Vaquero Parkway road & utility easement, per the Baxter Meadows
development plans. A 6" service will leave the street easement and head west to the Aquatics
Facility. The estimate includes a possible cost - sharing agreement with adjacent property owners
to reduce public infrastructure cost to the Aquatics project.
Water Service: The estimate assumes an 8" water main extension will be routed south in the
Vaquero Parkway road & utility easement, per the Baxter Meadows development plans. A new
6" fire service and a 2" Type K copper domestic service in the same trench will run west to the
Aquatics Facility. The estimate includes a possible cost - sharing agreement with adjacent
property owners to reduce public infrastructure cost to the Aquatics project.
Street Improvements: The City will require completion of Vaquero Parkway, utilizing the existing
road and utility easements. The estimate assumes the Aquatics Facility will be responsible for
full -width construction from Lolo Way to the Fire Station. The estimate includes a possible
cost - sharing agreement with adjacent property owners to reduce public infrastructure cost to the
Aquatics project.
ALTA Survey and Demolition: The ALTA survey and demolition are minimal due to the
undeveloped nature of the site.
Grading and Storm Drainage: The site drains northeast, generally at about 2.6 percent, to the
Vaquero Parkway road & utility easement. An existing irrigation pipe traverses the site and will
need to be rerouted or replaced with a pipe that can handle vehicular traffic loading. A feasible
concept for storm runoff would be to run storm drain pipe and surface runoff east to a ditch along
Vaquero Parkway, then discharge into a detention facility at the north end of the site, possibly
re- grading and utilizing the area north of the site where irrigation ditches converge.
Electrical, Natural Gas and Communications: The nearest three -phase electrical primary is
located on the north side of Baxter Lane. The nearest natural gas and communications lines
(telephone and internet/TV cable) are at the intersection of Vaquero Parkway and Lolo Way.
These utilities need to be extended south along Vaquero Parkway, with services into the YMCA
site. The estimate includes main line extensions to a point east of the Aquatics Facility building,
and service lines across Vaquero Parkway and into the site.
Impact Fees: Impact fees are required for new development and for redevelopment. There is no
cost reduction for re- development at this site, so the full cost of impact fees will be required.
Environmental Permitting: There are wetlands near and potentially within the site near the west
property line, and permitting may be required. The City requires a 50 -foot setback from
wetlands. Wetland impacts less than 0.1 acre (4,356 sq. ft.) require a environmental permitting.
Wetland impacts greater than or equal to 0.1 acre would require much more costly mitigation.
The estimate assumes we will avoid the greater impacts and mitigation.
C: \Users \mhickman \Desktop \siting narrative 10 -22 -13 draft.docx
Page 3 of 3 20
252
MoRRIsoN
MMERLE, INC.
An Emplovee - Owned Company
BOZEMAN AQUATICS CENTER
Comparison of Site Development Costs
Date: 10/29/13
Z: \13.037 Bozeman Aquatics \Pre- CA \11. Site Feasibility \[MMI site development costs.xlsx]A
TABLE 1: Comparative Cost Items for Site Development, Full Cost*
MDT site
Rose Park site
YMCA site
No.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity Cost
Quantity F Cost
Quantity Cost
1
sewer main extension
LF
$38
0 $0
1,400 $53,200
1,440 $54,720
2
add for sewer main under street
LS
N/A
0 $0
1 $16,000
0 $0
3
sewer service
LF
$18
100 $1,800
320 $5,760
740 $13,320
4
water main extension
LF
$48
0 $0
100 $4,800
1,940 $93,120
5
Aquatics Facility water service
LF
$75
100 $7,500
200 $15,000
200 $15,000
6
3/4" water service stubs
LF
$25
0 $0
0 $0
900 $22,500
7
local street
LF
$250
1 0 $0
1,300 $325,000
1,940 $485,000
8
ALTA survey
LS
N/A
1 $12,500
1 $7,000
1 $5,500
9
site demolition
LS
N/A
1 $290,000
1 $5,000
1 $5,000
10
storm drainage facilities
LS
N/A
1 $25,000
1 $38,000
1 $45,000
11
primary electrical service
LF
$40
50 $2,000
50 $2,000
1,000 $40,000
12
natural gas main
LF
$33
0 $0
0 $0
700 $23,100
13
natural gas service
LF
$18
50 $900
50 $900
200 $3,600
14
communications services
LF
$20
50 $1,000
50 $1,000
700 $14,000
15
6' sidewalk on N. side of Oak St.
LF
$35
0 $0
670 $23,450
0 $0
16
impact fees
LS
N/A
1 $103,000
1 $212,000
1 $212,000
17
environmental permitting
I LS
I N/A
1 0 $0
1 1 $60,000
1 $10,000
Totals, Full Cost*
$443,700
$769,110
$1,041,860
* The above items 1 through 7 represent full cost for for work within street right -of -ways. It may be possible to recoup some of these
costs with a negotiated "cost- share" agreements involving adjacent property owners.
NOTES (note numbers correspond to the above Table 1):
1 Includes manholes. The Rose Park site requires new sewer main from 27th & Tschache to the building site via 25th Avenue
extension. The YMCA site requires new sewer main under Vaquero Parkway per the Baxter Meadows development plans.
2 This item covers additional effort (street cut) to install 350 feet of sewer main under the existing paved Tschache Street.
3 The YMCA site includes sewer service stubs under Vaquero Parkway per the Baxter Meadows development plans.
4 Includes valves, fire hydrant assemblies and all fittings. The Rose Park site requires a fire hydrant, the cost equivlent of about
100 feet of water main. The YMCA site requires new water main from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
5 Water service for the Aquatics Facility includes a 6" fire protection service line, and a 2" domestic service line.
6 At the YMCA site, water service stubs are required under Vaquero Parkway per the Baxter Meadows development plans.
7 Unit cost is full width asphalt street with curb & gutter, sidewalks and street lights per City of Bozeman standards for local streets.
The Rose Park site requires construction of 25th Ave, from Oak Street to Tschache Street. The YMCA site requires construction
of Vaquero Parkway from Lolo Way to the existing Fire Station near Davis Lane.
8 Includes topographic and utility survey, and accurate locations of property lines and easements. Title report is not included.
9 Includes removal of all concrete and asphalt surfacing, and all buildings and foundations. It is assumed that all hazardous waste
cleanup will be completed prior to this project.
10 Includes ditches, culverts, storm drain systems and onsite detention /retention facilities. The YMCA site includes replacement of an
existing irrigation pipe with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) at a cost of $20,000. The Rose Park site includes replacement of an
existing irrigation ditch with RCP at a cost of $13,000.
11 Unit cost is a rough estimate, due to variable payback programs available from the electrical power provider (NorthWestern Energy).
12, 13 Unit cost is a rough estimate, due to variable payback programs available from the natural gas provider (NorthWestern Energy).
14 Unit cost is a rough estimate; costs not available from providers. Assumes one phone line and one coaxial TV /internet cable.
16 Impact fees are based on a 35,000 sq. ft. building. Redevelopment projects can deduct value of existing impacts based on current
impact fees. The MDT site accounts for this savings as half the total savings, with the other half reserved for the City Police /Courts
project to be located on the same site.
17 It is assumed that the MDT site has no wetlands. The other two sites include wetlands delineation report and three permits:
404 (wetlands), 124 (fisheries) and 318 (turbidity). YMCA site assumes total wetland disturbance is less than 0.10 acres. Rose Park
site includes an additional $50,000 cash -in -lieu for offsite mitigation wetlands, to offset loss of 1 acre of wetlands to development.
21
253
MORMSON
MMERLE, INC.
An Ernplovee- Owned Company
BOZEMAN AQUATICS CENTER
Comparison of Site Development Costs
Date: 10/29/13
* To more accurately estimate relative costs between the three sites, the above items 1 through 7 represent, for work within
street right -of -ways, a starting point for a negotiated "cost- share" agreement involving all of the adjacent property owners.
See item notes below for assumptions. Cost for items 8 through 17 is identical to Table 1.
NOTES (note numbers correspond to the above Table 2):
1 Includes manholes. The Rose Park site requires new sewer main from 27th & Tschache to the building site via 25th Avenue
extension. The YMCA site requires new sewer main from Lolo Way (south of Baxter Lane) to the south end of the YMCA property.
2 This item covers additional effort (street cut) to install 350 feet of sewer main under the existing paved Tschache Street.
4 Includes valves, fire hydrant assemblies and all fittings. The Rose Park site requires a fire hydrant, the cost equivlent of about
100 feet of water main. The YMCA site requires new water main from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
5 The Aquatics Facility will require a 6" fire protection service line and a 2" domestic service line.
6 At the YMCA site, it is assumed that cost for 3/4" water service stubs for the Baxter Meadows development will be paid by others.
7 Unit cost is full width asphalt street with curb & gutter, sidewalks and street lights per City of Bozeman standards. The Rose Park site
assumes half -width construction of 25"' Ave, from Oak Street to Tschache Street (i.e., full width unit cost times half the length). The
YMCA site assumes full width construction of Vaquero Parkway from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
8 through 17: (see Table 1 notes)
22
254
TABLE 2: Comparative Cost Items for Site Development, With Cost Share*
MDT site
Rose Park site
YMCA site
No.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
Cost
Quantity
Cost
Quantity
Cost
1
sewer main extension
LF
$38
0
$0
1,400
$53,200
700
$26,600
2
add for sewer main under street
LS
N/A
0
$0
1
$16,000
0
$0
3
sewer service
LF
$18
100
$1,800
200
$3,600
200
$3,600
4
water main extension
LF
$48
0
$0
100
$4,800
700
$33,600
5
Aquatics Facility water service
LF
$75
100
$7,500
200
$15,000
200
$15,000
6
3/4" water service stubs
LF
$25
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
7
local street
LF
1 $250
0
$0
650
$162,500
1,000
$250,000
8
Table 1, items 8 through 17
-
$434,400
$349,350
$358,200
Totals, With Cost Share:
$443,700
$604,450
$687,000
Totals from Table 1 (Full Cost):
$443,700
$769,110
$1,041,860
Difference = Proposed "Cost Share" Funding by Others:
$0
$164,660
$354,860
* To more accurately estimate relative costs between the three sites, the above items 1 through 7 represent, for work within
street right -of -ways, a starting point for a negotiated "cost- share" agreement involving all of the adjacent property owners.
See item notes below for assumptions. Cost for items 8 through 17 is identical to Table 1.
NOTES (note numbers correspond to the above Table 2):
1 Includes manholes. The Rose Park site requires new sewer main from 27th & Tschache to the building site via 25th Avenue
extension. The YMCA site requires new sewer main from Lolo Way (south of Baxter Lane) to the south end of the YMCA property.
2 This item covers additional effort (street cut) to install 350 feet of sewer main under the existing paved Tschache Street.
4 Includes valves, fire hydrant assemblies and all fittings. The Rose Park site requires a fire hydrant, the cost equivlent of about
100 feet of water main. The YMCA site requires new water main from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
5 The Aquatics Facility will require a 6" fire protection service line and a 2" domestic service line.
6 At the YMCA site, it is assumed that cost for 3/4" water service stubs for the Baxter Meadows development will be paid by others.
7 Unit cost is full width asphalt street with curb & gutter, sidewalks and street lights per City of Bozeman standards. The Rose Park site
assumes half -width construction of 25"' Ave, from Oak Street to Tschache Street (i.e., full width unit cost times half the length). The
YMCA site assumes full width construction of Vaquero Parkway from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
8 through 17: (see Table 1 notes)
22
254
MEMO
TO: Luke Jackson AIA
MMW Architects
125 W. Alder Street
Missoula, MT 59802
CC: Casey Aboudara, Cost Estimator
Roger Roen- President
FROM: Roger Roen/Casey Aboudara
Roen Associates
DATE: October 29, 2013
SUBJECT: Site Development Costs Comparision Overview
Bozeman Aquatics Center
Luke good to talk with you on this project yesterday, and the below summarizes Roen Associates overview of
subject project being analyzed on a cost basis for overall feasibility in site selection process.
Our comments are limited due to the fact that we have not done quantities calculations or scope evaluation on
these site options, but we have provided the overview you requested.
The three sites (MDT, Rose Park, and YWCA) all represent different levels of investment needed to
accommodate the new Bozeman Aquatics center, with the MDT site being the more affordable of the 3 due to a
more developed street /utility infrastructure that exists currently to serve that site.
Overall, cost comparisons based look reasonable to Roen Associates, but without doing a full estimate, a more
detailed cost opinion perspective is not available from our group at this time. Unit costs used in the cost
comparison look reasonable for the type of utilities and roads being proposed, but must be reviewed against utility
sizes /and pavement sections as well as quantity take offs for overall cost validity.
In addition, the MDT site must also be analyzed for costs due to the demolition/remediation of the current
industrial use that may present significant cost premiums.
Thanks again, and we look forward to working more on this project.
Please see all contact information for myself, and Roger below.
Casey Aboudara
Roen Associates
23
255
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
ra f
C
;.S_
fift- W •
NEVA
if
APPENDIX A - MDT SITE
w T�► �:o�uusvN R r.� E N - CIS
ON M"�i�TNC, ASSOCIATES Q i�� t eCtur'_
,,ff
A / A.E piny -0.-d Cwnp -y
m M YY
256
Printing: Layout Page
http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?83
24
257
1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:33 AM
t
It -�
as _ �, , �,� � �� • � � �� .
AAWL
� I
F7
LW
r ! '
ism
or
Y ` � rmi r, R � T ►�1
like., TAMARhCK ... ,
am Im I m I= I mein( I m
4 7-5b
Aw
Ab
0 200 yo p
5c,gL-6 TL F6tT Am- 70(,Iy, 5, ccA(Tot//t5 - /L4 PT S i
U)
0
Z
O
♦w
V
a
DEICER
TANKS
0
z W
::al
W
- E- p
W W
a.
Q
-- U
_ W
CL a
O Q
_�
(J)O
F-
p
Qp'
to W 1.
a ui ui
�Q
CY
11 W O
in
u
if
N
WW L
o �1
i z r 7
Y Cl
O
I
SHOP
I
W
z
O�
U F-
�J
cl
W
cn
o
N
it
W
U
it
� STEAM;
'ROOM
�I.
uj
C7 U
z U-
W U-
0
i�
�o
OFFICE
RACK STREET.
���11
w
Z)
z
w
>1
r
go/ Z 77'--cV-))
10
C;f� e-mol
-Oro
ti
b.
II
C. C/
6
Ali
- --se r-,_-%
v;
NOSIC
0
r- C "I
/0R0 r
27
0 0
0 M
----------
Wre
F/
u
0
/Oleo'
28
261
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ROUSE AVENUE SEWER REPLACEMENT
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
August 27, 2002
Prepared For:
Mr. James Nickelson, P.E.
Morrison - Maierle, Inc.
901 Technology Boulevard
Bozeman, Montana 59718
Prepared By:
GMT Consultants, Inc.
P. O. Box 7847
Missoula, MT 59807
Office: (406) 721 -2182
Project No. 020714 -0073
29
262
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Page #
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2
1.1 General
2
1.2 Scope of Investigation
2
2.0
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
3
2.1 General
3
2.2 Boring Locations and Elevations
3
2.3 Standard Penetration Testing
3
2.4 Site Geology
4
2.5 Subsurface Soils
4
2.6 Groundwater Observations
5
3.0
LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
5
3.1 General
5
3.2 Classification Tests
5
4.0
EXCAVATION, DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5
4.1 General
5
4.2 Suitable Site Materials for Sewer Trench Backfill
6
4.3 Subgrade Replacement Beneath Pavement
6
4.4 Seismic Considerations
6
4.5 Site Grading, Drainage, and Fill Work
7
5.0
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
7
APPENDIX
Plate 1 — Project Location Map g
Plate 2 — Boring Location Map 9
Soil Boring Logs 10
Summary of Classification Tests 20
Key to Classifications Used on Logs sheet 21
Graphical Classifications 23
30
263
Geotechnical Investigation
Rouse Avenue Sewer Replacement
Bozeman, Montana
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This investigation of the subsurface soil conditions. at the site of the proposed Rouse
Avenue Sewer Replacement Project in Bozeman, Montana was authorized on May 28,
2002 by Mr. John R. Schunke, Vice - President of Morrison- Maierle, Inc., Bozeman,
Montana in general accordance with our March 29, 2002 proposal. The purpose of this
investigation has been to establish the engineering characteristics of the subsurface
materials that may affect the excavation and construction of the proposed 9000 foot
sewer line.
The site extends approximately 9000 feet along North Rouse Avenue from approximately
700 feet north of Griffin Drive to approximately 170 feet south of Babcock Street in
Bozeman, Montana as shown on Plate 1 in the Appendix to this report. The site is a
major paved arterial in Bozeman. The topography across the site varies from
approximate elevation 4688.6 feet at Griffin Drive to 4796.5 feet at Babcock Street.
1.2 Scope of Investigation
The following tasks were performed in connection with the preparation of this report.
1. Auger borings were drilled in order to:
a. Establish subsurface soil strata present at the site.
b. Obtain samples of subsurface materialsTor laboratory analysis.
c. Investigate the in -situ conditions of the soils at the site.
d. Investigate subsurface water conditions at the site.
2. Subsurface materials from the site were analyzed in the testing laboratory using:
a. Visual examination
b. Sieve Analyses tests.
c. Atterberg Limits tests.
d. Moisture Content tests.
3. The information obtained from the subsurface exploration and laboratory
investigation was used in geotechnical engineering studies to determine soil
characteristics that will affect the excavation and construction of the proposed
improvements.
-2-
31
264
2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
2.1 General
Subsurface materials at the site were investigated by performing ten (10) auger borings to
depths of 14.8 to 16.0 feet below existing ground. Representative samples of the sub-
surface materials were obtained by the use of a 2 -inch outside diameter split - barrel
sampler. The split- barrel samples were removed from the sampler in the field and placed
in individually numbered plastic bags, which were sealed to minimize moisture changes.
All samples were classified in the field in accordance with American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) D -2488, "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of
Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure)" and transported to our testing laboratory for further
testing and study.
2.2 Boring Locations and Elevations
Boring locations B -1, B -3, B -4, B -5, B -7, B -8, and B -10 were selected by Morrison -
Maierle, Inc. GMT drill crew selected the locations for Borings B -2, B -6, and B -9 based
on the site plan provided as shown on Plate 2 in the Appendix to this report.. No
elevations were established at the boring sites by GMT.
2.3 Standard Penetration Testing
In -situ conditions of the subsurface soils at the site were investigated by the use of
Standard Penetration Tests in accordance with ASTM D -1586, "Standard Test Method
for Penetration Test and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils." The Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) determines the resistance of materials to penetration by a 2 -inch O.D. split - barrel
sampler driven by a 140 -pound "Safe -T" Hammer, dropping repetitively through a 30-
inch drop. Either the number of blows of the hammer required to drive the split - barrel
sampler 12 inches (after seating the sampler 6 inches), or the additional inches of
penetration by the sampler due to 100 blows of the hammer, whichever comes first, is
recorded on the field log.
Results of the Standard Penetration Tests are shown on the left -hand side of the Soil
Boring Logs in the Appendix to this report. The relationship between the number of
blows in the SPT and the consistency of the cohesive soils is illustrated in Table A.
-3-
32
265
TABLE A
Summary of
SPT Blow Count and Consistency
Blow Count
Consistency
Less than 2
Very Soft
2 -4
Soft
4 - 8
Medium
8 - 15
Stiff
15 — 30
Very Stiff
Over 30
Hard
-3-
32
265
The relationship between the number of blows in the SPT and the density of the non -
cohesive soils is illustrated in Table B.
TABLE B
Summary of SPT Blow Count and Relative Density
Blow Count Relative Density
0 -5
6 -10
11 — 30
31
—50
50+
2.4 Site Geology
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
The primary geologic formation underlying this site is alluvial valley fill of Quaternary
age derived from a variety of rock groups surrounding Bozeman. During the construction
of roads, streets, water, and sewer service along and across Rouse Avenue, various types
of fill have been used under the pavement and as backfill in utility trenches. At several
drill site locations, organic silt and clayey layers were encountered beneath fill material
and asphalt pavement. The materials encountered by our soil borings varied from organic
silt and clay to silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles.
2.5 Subsurface Soils
The general soil profile encountered in Borings B -1, B -2, B -3, B -4, B -5, B -6, and B -9
was 3.5 to 7.5 feet of various types of SILT, SAND and GRAVEL FILL (SP -SM) and
ORGANIC SILT and CLAY (ML -CL), followed by 8.5 to 11.3 feet of GRAVELLY
SAND with silt and cobbles (SP -SM) to at least the bottom of the borings.
The general soil profile encountered in Borings B -7, B -8, and B -10 was 2 to 4 inches of
ASPHALT, followed by 0.7 to 2.2 feet of GRAVEL CUSHION (GW) and gravelly to
silty SAND FILL ((SP), followed by 2.0 to 3.5 feet. of sandy organic SILT with some
gravel or clay (ML. -CL), followed by 933 to 12.5 feet of GRAVELLY SAND with silt and
cobbles (SP -SM) to at least the bottom of the borings.
The penetration resistances recorded in the organic silt and clay ranged from 3 to 18
blows per foot (BPF). These values indicate that the organic silts and clays are soft to
very stiff by soil consistency standards
The penetration resistance recorded in the gravelly sand with silt and cobbles ranged
from 14 to greater than 100 blows per foot (BPF). These values indicate that the gravelly
sand with silt and cobbles is medium dense to very dense by soil denseness standards.
It should be noted that a loose, gravelly sand with silt and clay was encountered from 7.5
to 12.5 feet in Boring B -4, resulting in blow counts of 8 blows per foot (BPF).
33
266
2.6 Groundwater Observations
The borings were advanced to depths of 14.8 to 16.0 feet without using drilling fluids.
The borings and samples above these depths were observed for signs of subsurface water.
Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings except B -10. Groundwater depths
varied from 8.0 to 14.0 feet below the ground surface at the time of our investigation, and
monitoring wells were installed in Borings B -2, B =S, and B -6 for future monitoring.
Groundwater will impact the design, construction and performance of the sewer project.
3.0 LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 General
All samples of subsurface materials from the borings were examined and classified in our
testing laboratory. Laboratory tests were conducted to assist in the classifications and to
determine design characteristics of the subsurface soils. Laboratory classifications of the
subsurface materials refer to the "Unified Soil Classification System" as explained in the
"Key to Classifications Used on Soil Boring Logs" in the Appendix to this report.
3.2 Classification Tests
In our testing laboratory, Sieve Analyses Tests, Atterberg Limits Tests, and Moisture
Content Tests were performed on selected samples. The purpose of these classification
tests was to aid in the proper classification of the soils, to. establish grain size
characteristics and to detennine natural moisture conditions. The results of our laboratory
tests are summarized on the "Summary of Classification Tests" in the Appendix to this
report.
4.0 EXCAVATION, DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
It is our understanding that the plan is to construct a new sanitary sewer along
approximately 9000 lineal feet of Rouse Avenue in Bozeman, Montana. The new sewer
construction may encounter groundwater depending upon the time of year construction
takes place. The groundwater table was encountered above the existing sanitary sewer in
Boring B -2, B -7, and B -8 and very near the bottom of the sewer in B -6 at the time of our
investigation on July 2' ) and 24, 2002. Groundwater monitoring should be recorded
periodically by Morrison - Maierle, Inc. and provided to GMT to determine groundwater
levels in the monitoring wells installed in Borings B -2, B -5, and B -6.
-5-
34
267
4.2 Suitable Site Materials For Sewer Trench Backfill
The organic silts and clays have weak support characteristics, and are collapsible. The
sandy silts are also weak when wetted, and tend to be difficult, if not impossible to
properly compact. We reconunend removal of all organic soils and sandy silt soils from
the excavations at the project site. The new sewer should be bedded in compacted select
bedding material on the re- compacted native gravelly sand with silt and cobbles to
provide uniform pipe bearing. Excavated gravelly sand soils (free of organics and clay)
inay be selectively stockpiled and re -used for trench backfill if approved by the
geotechnical engineer. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in lifts beneath,
around, and over the new sanitary sewer pipe.
The bedding material should be specified as follows:
100 percent passing the 1 inch Sieve
40 -70 percent passing the No. 4 Sieve
0 to 10 percent passing the No. 200 Mesh Sieve
Trench backfill over the pipe bedding should be specified as a sandy gravel with
appreciable fines (GP to GM material) and should meet the following requirements:
Maximum Particle Size = 3 inches
Maximum P.I. = 6
Maximum Percent Passing 200 Sieve = 12
All pipe bedding and backfill in the trenches should be compacted to 95 percent of
AASHTO T -99 Proctor near optimum moisture content in lifts not exceeding 8 inches
compacted thickness.
4.3 Subgrade Replacement Beneath Pavement
For excavated areas under the pavement along Rouse Avenue, we recommend removing
and wasting all sandy silt, organic silt and clay. The resulting gravelly sand subgrade
should be re- compacted to 95 percent of AASHTO T -99 Proctor. Any fill used to replace
the silt, clay, and organics back to subgrade elevation should be sandy gravel with
appreciable fines (GP -GM material) as described above in Section 4.2. All compaction
under pavement sections should be 95 percent of AASHTO T -99 Proctor near optimum
moisture content in lifts not exceeding 8 inches compacted thickness.
4.4 Seismic Considerations
This site is within seismic zone 3. The structural engineer should use a seismic zone
factor Z of 0.3 along with a soil profile type Sd for design considerations.
lulls
35
268
4.5 Site Grading, Drainage, and Fill Work
A site drainage plan should be designed to provide for positive drainage of storm water
and snowmelt away from the proposed construction areas. Moisture should not be
allowed to accumulate or be discharged into the excavated trenches or beneath areas to be
paved. It is also essential that the surface be graded to properly drain and prevent
ponding, which can cause settlement.
5.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the soil borings conducted at the locations indicated on the attached Plate 2
in the Appendix to this report. Variations occur between specific sites tested, the nature
and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is
conducted.
A re- evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report should be made after
performing on -site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any
variations. The variations may result in..edditional construction costs, and it is suggested
that a contingency be provided for this purpose.
It is also recommended that observations and testing programs be conducted for the site
preparation phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions
encountered during construction with the soils observed during this investigation.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this report to you. If you have any questions
regarding the information herein, please contact us at (406) 721 -2182 at your
convenience. ,,,tunnarrrrrm�,,,..
Respectfully submitted,
William W. Weikel, P.E.
Project Engineer
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
N'A
�,N1�L DEL
' 4
'G %,VEER
N
o
'�- JOHN J.�y;
CRAWFORD ;Y
.4382 E
RFGISTS ?� 14
41 ANAL__.
-7-
36
269
Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
City of Bozeman
MDT Property
907 North Rouse
Bozeman, MT
Prepared for:
Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman
Bozeman, MT
Prepared by:
44 Hyalite Environmental, LLP
P.O. Box 90
Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730
(406) 763 -4228
June 2013
37
270
Cover Photo: View of the property of interest
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LIB
City of Bozeman - MDT Property 271 June 2
Table of Contents
Listof Figures ...................................................................... ...............................
iv
Listof Appendices ............................................................... ...............................
iv
Executive Summary ............................................................. ...............................
1
1.0
Introduction ....................................................... ...............................
2
2.0
Site Description .................................................. ...............................
2
3.0
User Provided Information ................................. ...............................
3
4.0
Records Review .................................................. ...............................
3
4.1
Regulatory Records Review ............................... ...............................
3
4.1.1
Facilities within one mile of the site of interest ...............................
4
4.1.2
Facilities within one -half mile of the site of interest .........................
6
4.1.3
Facilities adjacent to or within the site of interest ............................
8
4.2
Water Quality ..................................................... ...............................
9
4.3
Historic Records Information ............................. ...............................
10
4.3.1
Historical Data .................................................... ...............................
10
4.3.2
Title Records ...................................................... ...............................
10
5.0
Site Reconnaissance ........................................... ...............................
11
5.1
Subject Property ................................................. ...............................
11
5.2
Adjoining Property ............................................. ...............................
11
6.0
Interviews ........................................................... ...............................
12
7.0
Findings .............................................................. ...............................
13
8.0
Opinion ............................................................... ...............................
14
9.0
Conclusions ........................................................ ...............................
15
10.0
Deviations ........................................................... ...............................
15
11.0
References .......................................................... ...............................
16
iii
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LIB,
City of Bozeman - MDT Property 272 June 2
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site location
Figure 2. 2011 Aerial photo of site
Figure 3. Facilities that are potentially significant if they are within one mile of the site of
interest
Figure 4. Facilities that are potentially significant if they are within one -half mile of the site of
interest
List of Appendices
Appendix A Example Site Photos Page
Photo 1. Main office and shop building located in southeast corner of property. A -1
Photo 2. Welding shop — typical example of maintenance buildings throughout
Photo 10.
facility with concrete floors and floor drains.
A -1
Photo 3.
Example of storage of chemicals / oils in 55 gallon drums — stored on
A -6
Photo 12.
concrete floor pad within an enclosed building.
A -2
Photo 4.
Mechanic shop — newer building built in 1990's. Remaining buildings
A -7
Photo 14.
were built after purchase of property by MDT in 1951.
A -2
Photo 5.
Chemical storage tanks located on concrete pads.
A -3
Photo 6.
Northern portion of property looking north. Overall drainage direction
of property flows in a northerly direction via sheet flow.
A -3
Photo 7.
Current fueling island with 10,000 gallon diesel and 10,000 gallon
gasoline underground storage tanks.
A -4
Photo 8.
Waste oil burner used for heating building.
A -4
Photo 9.
One of the floor drains in the maintenance shop.
A -5
Photo 10.
Northwest portion of property — sand storage pile.
A -5
Photo 11.
Outside wash -down area for equipment.
A -6
Photo 12.
Flammable gas secured and stored within building.
A -6
Photo 13.
Bozeman City Shops located south of property of interest.
A -7
Photo 14.
Kenyon Noble yard located east of property of interest.
A -7
Photo 15.
Industrial / commercial businesses located east of property of interest. A -8
Photo 16.
Business and residential areas adjacent of property of interest.
A -8
1V
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, L
City of Bozeman - MDT Property 273 June 20
Appendix B Supporting Information from Records Review Page
Federally listed sites -- NPDES, CERCLA, TRI, RCRA, AIRS
B -1
MT CECRA Priority sites, RRS
B -111
Remediation Response Sites
B -114
VCRA, CALA, WQA, Brownfields, NRC, Meth
B -174
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)
B -185
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
B -238
Landfills.
B -251
Abandoned and Inactive Mines
B -252
Railroad right -of -way, pipelines
B -255
Groundwater, surface water, public water supply
B -258
Adjacent Parcels
B -271
Appendix C Historic Information Page
Historic aerial photos C -1
Title records C -11
Appendix D Communication Records
Contact
Basis for interview
Page
Brit Fontenot
City of Bozeman — User Questionnaire form
D -1
Dustin Johnson
City of Bozeman
D -3
Kyle DeMars
MDT Maintenance Chief, Bozeman
D -4
Bill Pierce
MDT Maintenance Superintendent, Bozeman
D -5
Maryanne Mathews
MDT Office Administrator, Bozeman
D -6
Doug Compton
MDT Environmental Services, Helena
D -7
William Bergum
MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
D -9
Katie Erny
MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
D -10
Donnie McCurry
MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
D -12
John Vandelinder
Street Supervisor, City of Bozeman
D -13
John Alston
Water / Sewer Supervisor, City of Bozeman
D -14
Tammy Crone
Gallatin Water Quality District
D -15
Michelle
Adjacent Property, M &W Truck & Auto
D -16
Sue Shockley
Adjacent Property, Gallatin County Fairgrounds
D -17
Ashly Ogle
Adjacent Property, Kenyon Noble
D -18
Appendix E Environmental Professional Statement
Signed Statement and Resume
V
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLE
City of Bozeman - MDT Property 274 June 20
Executive Summary
Hyalite Environmental, LLC, has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for
the City of Bozeman on State of Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) property in
Bozeman, MT. The MDT property (property of interest) is approximately 9 acres and is located
at 907 North Rouse, Bozeman, within Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Section 6, Montana
Prime Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana (Figures 1 and 2).
This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions from
properties within the search radius of one mile, on -half mile, or adjacent to, the property of
interest that would indicate the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products on the subject property.
There were several historic recognized environmental conditions that involved releases of
contaminants to the soils and underlying groundwater within the property of interest.
• Leaking underground storage tank releases
• Release #345, released 7/16/1990, resolved 9/16/1999, Not Active
• Release #1136, released 3/31/1992, resolved 7/22/2008, Not Active
• Release #2319, released 8/17/1994, resolved 2/3/1995, Not Active
• Remedial Response Site Release: This site was listed in 1997 during the removal of a
concrete vault that contained road oil. The site was delisted in 1999.
The above recognized releases have been resolved and likely do not pose an environmental
concern to the property. The MDT property currently has two 10,000 gallon underground
storage tanks (USTs) in use, one diesel and one gasoline. The current 10,000 gallon USTs are
currently in compliance with DEQ.
Suspect environmental conditions based on past releases, and the historic and present uses of the
property, include the possibility of hazardous substances or petroleum products beneath the
property of interest as a result of the use of floor drains located within the majority of the
buildings. In addition, there may be stained soils underlying the areas where there is currently
asphalt. These stains would likely be from past spills / leaks prior to paving the site.
This Phase I ESA has been performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527 -05 Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM,
2005). This Phase I ESA does not address asbestos - containing materials, radon, lead -based
paint, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health
and safety, ecological resources, endangered species or indoor air quality. Hyalite
Environmental was contracted through Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman. The findings and
conclusions generated or produced here are intended exclusively for the use of Brit Fontenot,
City of Bozeman, and specific parties designated by Brit Fontenot.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty
1
275
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
42
1.0 Introduction
Hyalite Environmental, LLC has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on
property owned by Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) located at 907 North Rouse,
Bozeman, MT. The Phase I ESA was performed at the request of the City of Bozeman by Brit
Fontenot, Bozeman, MT. The location of the property is shown in Figure 1.
The purpose of the environmental site assessment is to perform "all appropriate inquiry into the
previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary
practice" as defined in 42 USC 9601(35)(B). The goal of the Phase I ESA is to identify
recognized environmental conditions that would indicate the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an
existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface
water of the property.
This Phase I ESA has been performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527 -05 Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM,
2005).
2.0 Site Description
The MDT property (property of interest) consists of approximately 9 acres owned by the State of
Montana. The property address is 907 North Rouse, Bozeman. The eastern edge of the property
is bordered by Rouse Street, the northern boundary by Oak Street, and the southern boundary by
Tamarack Street. The Gallatin County Fairgrounds borders the western edge of the property.
The property is within Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Section 6, Montana Prime Meridian,
Gallatin County, Montana. Figure 1 shows the site location relative to Bozeman on a
topographic map of regional scale. An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. Site
photos showing the property of interest and adjacent parcels are included in Appendix A.
The property of interest has been owned and operated by MDT since the early 1950's as an area
office for the operations and maintenance of state -owned roads and highways. Land use in the
area surrounding the property is a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential. Bozeman
Creek flows north approximately 350 feet east of the property of interest. Interstate 90 and the
railroad are located a few property parcels away to the north and northeast of the property.
The Bozeman Montana State University weather station (241044) has recorded the average
annual total precipitation as 18.3 inches (Western Regional Climate Center, 2013). The average
maximum temperature is 81.4° Fahrenheit (F) in July and the average minimum temperature is
12.0° F in January. The average total annual snowfall is 86.0 inches, and the average snow depth
in January is 5 inches.
0)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty June 2013
43
276
3.0 User Provided Information
Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman, MT, represents the user(s) of this Phase I ESA. The User
Questionnaire form suggested for use by the Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM, 2005) was filled out by
Mr. Fontenot and is included in Appendix D, pages D 1 -D2.
The user Brit Fontenot has no knowledge of any environmental liens filed or recorded against the
property of interest. The user is not aware of any Activity and Use Limitations that are in place
on the site or that have been filed or recorded. The user has no specialized knowledge or
experience related to the property. There is no negotiated value or purchase price for the
property at this time. The user is aware of past uses of the property. The user knows of no spills
or other chemical releases that have taken place on the property. The user has no knowledge that
there are any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at
the property
4.0 Records Review
Supporting information for the records review is included in Appendix B. Historic Aerial Photos
and Deed Records are included in Appendix C, and Communication Records are included in
Appendix D.
4.1 Regulatory Records Review
Records were reviewed (record types and databases, pertinent search distances) according to
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process (ASTM, 2005). The search radius required for each type of site differs according to the
type of regulation, potential hazard, and regulatory agency. The following classification scheme
organizes the search radius requirements in order of decreasing required search radius; each level
of records review is from the defined required radius inward, and includes the subject
property(ies).
Required Records Search Radius of One Mile:
1. The search radius is one mile for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). These sites are commonly referred to as
Federal Superfund Sites and are listed on the National Priority List (NPL).
2. The search radius is one mile for Montana Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup
and Responsibility Act (CECRA) sites. These sites are commonly referred to as State
Superfund Sites. [A Montana state program allows Potentially Liable Persons to
voluntarily participate in the Controlled Allocation of Liability Act (CALA) program
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
3
277
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
44
or the Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act (VCRA) as an alternative to
standard CECRA processes.]
3. Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage or Disposal
(TSD) facilities that have had a corrective action are also required to be noted if
within one mile from the proposed project site.
Required Records Search Radius of One -Half Mile:
1. RCRA TSD sites that have not had a corrective action are to be noted if within one -
half mile of the proposed project site.
2. The search radius is one -half mile for Solid Waste Landfills (SWLFs).
3. The search radius is one -half mile for Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
sites.
Required Records Search of Adjacent Properties:
1. Records for property adjacent to the proposed property are searched for Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs).
2. Records for property adjacent to the proposed property are searched for RCRA
generators.
Required Records Search of Subject Properties:
1. Records are searched for the proposed project property for toxic chemical releases.
Additional databases that are not included in the standard that have been searched for the
property of interest and the area within one mile of that site include the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) active and abandoned mine lands (AML) databases, the
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) mining databases, and various groundwater
and surface water databases. Database queries are made for different variables in different
combinations to provide redundancy to the searches and to minimize the effect of database errors
on the results of the queries.
4.1.1 Facilities within One Mile of the Site of Interest
The area within one mile of the property of interest is shown on Figure 3.
There are two sites (Figure 3) listed in the Federal Superfund (CERCLA) database that fall
within one mile of the property of interest (Appendix B pages B1 — B20).
1. Idaho Pole Plant. The Idaho Pole Company began wood treating operations in 1945
using creosote, switching to pentachlorophenol (PCP) in 1952. It was added to the
National Priorities List (NPL) of superfund sites in 1986. In 1989, MDEQ assumed the
lead agency role through a cooperative agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). EPA issued a Record of Decision in 1992. Cleanup activities for both
soils and groundwater ensued. In 2001, a Controlled Groundwater Area was established
down gradient of the Idaho Pole site, extending in a northerly direction. Information
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty
278
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
45
related to the Idaho Pole Plant site is located in Appendix B pages 1369 -1375. Based on
the location of the Idaho Pole Plant property, and the extent and direction of the
groundwater contaminant plume, this CERCLA site is not likely to pose any risk to the
property of interest.
2. Bozeman Solvent Site. The Bozeman Solvent Site is a chlorinated - solvent- contaminated
groundwater plume, primarily tetrachloroethylene (PCE), which originated from a dry
cleaning facility located on the north side of Main Street, just east of 19th Street,
Bozeman. Although the site is listed in the Federal information system database
(CERCLIS) as a Federal Superf ind Site, the MDEQ CECRA program is the lead
regulatory program for this facility. The site is listed in the Montana Superfund database
and is identified as a Maximum Priority CECRA Site (Appendix B pages B45, B 117 -
B 131). The contaminated groundwater plume, which extends approximately 2.5 miles
north of the original site, falls just within the one -mile radius of the property of interest.
The plume is well defined and monitored, and since the plume does not lie beneath the
property of interest, it is not likely to pose a risk to the property of interest.
There are five listed Montana Superfund ( CECRA) sites within 1 mile of the property of interest
(Figure 3) (Appendix B pages B 111 -B 113):
1) Bozeman Old City Landfill. The Bozeman Old City Landfill is an inactive,
approximately 30 -acre municipal landfill, which operated from 1962 to 1970 (Appendix
B pages B 114 -B 116). During a 1983 CERCLA site investigation, sampling found very
low levels of organic and inorganic compounds and the EPA declared that the facility
needed "No Further Action" under CERCLA. The site was covered and revegetated and
is now part of the East Gallatin Recreation Area. The MDEQ CECRA program is
currently the lead regulatory program for the site and continues to monitor / sample to
ensure public health and safety. The site is ranked as a low priority and no further actions
are planned at this time.
2) Bozeman Solvent Site.
The Bozeman Solvent Site was discussed above under the CERCLA sites (Appendix B
pages B45, B 117 -B 131).
3) CMC Asbestos Bozeman.
The CMC Asbestos Bozeman site, located on East Main, is an inactive, 11 -acre asbestos
ore - loading depot that operated between 1956 and 1988 (Appendix B pages B132- B139).
The site was listed as a CECRA site in 1990. The City of Bozeman initiated a voluntary
allocation of liability under CALA, and in 2006 agreed to act as the lead Potentially
Liable Party to conduct remedial actions. Cleanup was completed in 2009, with final
reseeding /revegetation efforts still underway. groundwater There are portions of the site
that are owned by private parties, rather than the City of Bozeman, that have not been
remediated.
4) Developmental Technology. Developmental Technology was a former electroplating
5
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty June 2013
46
279
facility that was closed in 1976 (Appendix B pages B140-B141). Abandoned hazardous
waste drums were removed and disposed of in 1977. The site was originally listed under
CERCLA, but was delisted in 1984. The site remains listed under CECRA with a low
priority ranking.
5) Mercer Post Plant. The Mercer Post Plant is an inactive wood - treating facility that
operated from 1970 to 1974 (Appendix B pages B 142 -B 143). The facility was a small,
approximately 1 -acre operation which used pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat posts. In
1989, EPA declared that the facility required "No Further Action" under CERCLA. The
MDEQ CECRA program is now the lead regulatory program for the site. The site is
currently listed as low priority. Further evaluation / sampling will be needed before the
site can be considered to require "No Further Action" under CECRA.
Based on the locations of the CECRA sites with respect to the property of interest, and the extent
of cleanup that has been conducted for each of the facilities to date, the sites listed above do not
likely pose a threat to the property of interest.
The MDEQ Remediation Response Site (RRS) database (Appendix B pages B 144 -B 173) was
searched for other properties within the search radii that were not already identified in the
CERCLA and CECRA databases. The RRS database identified past CECRA facilities within the
search radius that have been delisted. These sites include:
• Lattice Materials, located at 516 E. Tamarack, which was listed in 1990 and delisted in
1997. Site cleanup included remediation of soils contaminated with petroleum.
• Montana Rail Link Asbestos, located north of 506 Front Street. The site was listed in
1990 as a result of asbestos contamination. The site was cleaned up and delisted in 1996.
The CMC Asbestos Bozeman site is listed in both the VCRA and CALA registry (Appendix B
pages B174 — B177). These programs allow potentially liable persons to voluntarily participate
in clean -up programs as an alternative to standard CECRA processes. A description of the site
is listed above under the CECRA discussion.
There are no known RCRA treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facilities for which a corrective
action has been required within one mile of the site (Appendix B pages B 1 — B20).
4.1.2 Facilities within One -Half Mile of the Site of Interest
The area within one -half mile of the parcel of interest is shown on Figure 4. There are no listed
RCRA TSD facilities within one -half mile of the site (Appendix B pages B 1 — B20). There are
no recorded closed solid waste landfills within one -half mile of the site (Appendix B pages B1 —
B23).
There are five listed leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites, or petroleum tank release
sites, within 1/2 mile of the property of interest (Appendix B pages B185—B237). Of these, four
are listed as "non- active ", and one is listed as "active ". The following table summarizes the
6
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty June 2013
47
280
LUST sites within % mile of the property of interest.
Site Name
Address
Facility
ID
Release
ID
Date of
Release
Resolve
Date
Active
Gallatin County Shops
W Tamarack & N
1604563
2675
12/6/1989
5/23/1990
No
Grand
MT Dept Hwy
907 N Rouse
1604052
345
7/16/1990
9/16/1999
No
MT Dept Hwy
907 N Rouse
1604052
1136
3/31/1992
7/22/2008
No
MT Dept Hwy
907 N Rouse
1604052
2319
8/17/1994
2/3/1995
No
Bozeman City Shops
814 N Bozeman
1603847
749
5/24/1991
7/19/1996
No
Bozeman
Transmission Center
421 N Broadway
1612812
1458
11/6/1992
12/2/1993
No
Kwik Way 32
401 E Peach
1605094
4599
10/25/2007
Yes
All of the non - active sites, which have had a confirmed release, have been resolved. However,
there have been three resolved releases that occurred directly on the MDT property of interest
that deserve discussion.
• Release ID 345 involved the release of gasoline from a 6,000 gallon UST discovered in
1990. The tank was closed and removed, and soil contamination was evident at the time
of removal. Contaminated soils were excavated and groundwater monitoring wells were
installed. A No Further Corrective Action Required letter was provided by DEQ on
September 16, 1999, after monitoring results indicated appropriate clean -up levels. The
monitoring groundwater wells were abandoned in 1996. (Appendix B page B207, B213-
B217; Appendix D page D -10)
• Release ID 1136 was initially reported during the removal of two tanks in 1992 (6,000
gasoline UST and a 10,000 gallon diesel UST), as well as a surface spill in 1993.
Approximately 375 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soils were excavated and
groundwater monitoring wells installed. A No Further Corrective Action Required letter
was provided by DEQ on July 22, 2008 after monitoring wells indicated that groundwater
was not adversely impacted from the residual soils contamination. The groundwater
monitoring wells were abandoned and closed. (Appendix B pages B208 -B209, B213-
B217; Appendix D page D -10).
• Release ID 2319 was associated with the removal of a 300 gallon waste oil tank in 1994.
Approximately one cubic yard of contaminated soil was excavated. A No Further
Corrective Action Required letter was provided by DEQ on February 3, 1995 after soil
samples indicated that the removal of the contaminated soils was sufficient. (Appendix B
pages B210 -B212; Appendix D page D -10)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
7
281
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
48
The Kwik Way site, located approximately 1/4 mile south from the property of interest, is still
pending closure and is rated by MDEQ as a High Priority (Appendix B, pages 13220 - 13235).
Three tanks were removed from the ground in 2007, and as a result of the leaking underground
storage tanks, the soils within the immediate area of the tanks were contaminated. In addition,
groundwater within the site was also affected. Ongoing monitoring of wells located on the
property have found low concentrations of dissolved contamination within one well on the
property detectable during periods of high groundwater. It is suggested that the plume boundary
has not migrated off -site. MDEQ has required continuing monitoring as dissolved contaminants
naturally degrade and attenuate.
The LUST sites do not likely pose a potential threat to the properties of interest. All of the
LUST sites identified within the search radius have been resolved except for the Kwik Way site.
Records review and discussions with DEQ agency project officers indicated that clean -up
remediation efforts of the active LUST site have eliminated or greatly reduced the potential for
impacts to any off -site facilities.
The MDT Maintenance Facility (property of interest) was identified as a "delisted" WQA facility
in the RRS database (Appendix B pages B154 -156, 13166- 13167). Since this incident occurred on
the property of interest, information regarding the incident is presented here. This site was listed
in 1997 as a result of a release discovered during the removal of a concrete vault that contained
road oil. Cleanup measures were taken over the next several years. Based on soils and
groundwater monitoring results, the site was delisted in 1999. The RRS database identified
several other WQA sites within the search radius, but all have been classified as "delisted"
(Appendix B pages B144 -173).
4.1.3 Facilities Adjacent to or within the Site of Interest
There is one RCRA generator that is listed on the parcel of interest, or directly adjacent to the
property of interest (Appendix B page BI-1320). The MDT facility is listed as a Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) in the Federal EPA database. The majority of the
hazardous waste that is generated is related to products used for servicing and maintaining
equipment and vehicles (Appendix D, page D -7)
There are four UST sites listed in the databases that may be considered adjacent to, or on, the
property of interest (Appendix B pages B238— B250).
1. The MDT property located at 907 North Rouse currently has two 10,000 gallon tanks in
use, one diesel and one gasoline. Five tanks are listed as closed and were removed from
the ground in 1990, 1993 and 1994. (Appendix B pages B 195 -B 196)
2. Kenyon Noble, an adjacent property located at 1104 North Rouse, has no active tanks.
Kenyon Noble had two tanks which were closed and removed from the ground in 1988.
(Appendix B pages B249 -B250)
8
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty June 2013
49
282
3. The Bozeman City Shops, located at 814 N Bozeman, previously had five UST's located
on the property. All five tanks were closed and removed from the ground in 1991.
(Appendix B pages 13193 -13194)
4. The Gallatin County Shops, located at West Tamarack and North Grand, previously had
seven USTs located on the property. All seven tanks have been closed and were removed
from the ground between 1986 and 1996. (Appendix B pages 13218 -13219; )
There have been no toxic chemical releases reported on the property or adjacent to the property
of interest (Appendix B pages B 181 -B 184).
There are no records of mine sites or abandoned mines adjacent to, or within, the property of
interest (Appendix B pages B 165 — B 166).
4.2 Water Quality
The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the property of interest is in the range from 12 to 20
feet below ground surface. Groundwater flows in the vicinity of the property of interest
generally flow in a northerly to northeasterly direction toward the East Gallatin River, and
locally toward Bozeman Creek.
Groundwater data was pulled for the area surrounding the property of interest (Appendix B pages
13258 - 13265). There is no recent groundwater quality data publicly available for the vicinity of
the property. There is shallow groundwater quality data available for the Idaho Pole site (Section
4.1.1), but that is related to the CERCLA site and not relevant to the property of interest. There
are no nearby public water supplies with deep groundwater quality data
There was historic groundwater data from monitoring wells that were installed on the MDT
property to monitor impacts and clean -up from the leaking underground storage tanks (Appendix
B pages B207- B217). These wells were abandoned when groundwater quality samples were no
longer showing concentrations of constituents of concern above groundwater quality standards,
and the LUST sites (as discussed previously) were considered to be resolved by MDEQ. The
water quality data from the monitoring wells from the MDT LUST sites is evidence that
groundwater concentrations in areas under the site have, at the time and location of the sampling,
had groundwater quality that met groundwater quality standards.
There are no surface water bodies on or adjacent to the parcel of interest. The nearest stream,
Bozeman Creek, is within approximately 340 feet of the property. This stream has been
determined to be fully supporting of agricultural and drinking water beneficial uses, partially
supporting primary contact recreation beneficial use, and not supporting aquatic life beneficial
uses. Impairment has been determined to be caused by grazing in riparian or shoreline zones,
irrigated crop production and yard maintenance, channelization and loss of riparian habitat and
septage disposal (Appendix B pages 13266 - 13268).
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
X
283
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
50
4.3 Historic Records Information
4.3.1 Historic Data
Sanborn fire insurance maps were available for the property of interest between 1904 and 1946
(Appendix C pages C1 -C6). The only dates that had information available for the property of
interest were the 1927 map and the 1927 -1946 map. The 1927 map shows one small structure, a
stable, on the northern portion of the property (Appendix C, page C4). To the north of the
property was the Montana Flour Mill Company. The 1927 -1946 map (Appendix C page C6)
shows that the Montana Department of Highways had a machinery and materials yard on the
southern portion of the site, which included several buildings (offices and shops) and oil/fuel
tanks (tar, road oil, gas and lubricating oil). On the northern portion of the property, a building
that is listed as part of the Montana Flour Mills Company is identified as "machinery storage ".
The following historical aerial photos were examined for the following years: 1995, 2003, 2006,
and 2011 (Appendix C pages C7 -C10). No major changes to the property of interest were noted
during that period.
There is no other evidence in the recorded documents of historic use that the property of interest
was developed, or used for other purposes, prior to development by MDT and the one building
identified as part of the Montana Flour Mill. Uses of the property for storage of fuels and oils
were identified as far back as 1946 (or earlier). Environmental regulations were not in place
prior to the early 1970's and the likelihood of spills of hazardous and petroleum products that
were not reported are high.
4.3.2 Title Records
Records pertaining to the properties of interest were reviewed for historical and environmental
conditions. Documents (deeds, easements, liens, etc.) were researched and reviewed by Hyalite
Environmental through the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder files. The records that were
obtained are included in Appendix C (pages C 11 — C 19).
The parcel of interest was acquired by MDT from the Gallatin County in 1951 through a Quit
Claim Deed. [Note: The MT Department of Administration cadastral database has the parcel
recorded as Gallatin County ownership, not as a separate parcel from the Gallatin County
Fairgrounds under MDT ownership.] As indicated from earlier Sanborn maps, MDT was using
the parcel of land prior to the parcel transfer. Gallatin County purchased the property of interest,
along with a large portion of property to the west, from Syracuse University in 1914. Syracuse
University acquired the property in 1897 during a Sherriff Auction. Sanborn maps indicated that
the University did not develop the land during that time.
The deed records reviewed showed no indications of any environmental liens or authorized use
limitations for the property of interest.
10
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty June 2013
51
284
5.0 Site Reconnaissance
Hyalite personnel performed a site reconnaissance of the property on June 21, 2013. The site
reconnaissance was documented by photographs, which are included in Hyalite's project files.
Representative site photos are included in Appendix A.
5.1 Subiect Property
Hyalite personnel met with Kyle DeMars, MDT Maintenance Chief, and Bill Pierce, MDT
Maintenance Superintendent, who has been with MDT for thirty five years, at the property
location. Mr. Pierce provided a walk- through of the entire property, including buildings and
grounds.
The property of interest houses numerous buildings, mostly located on the southern portion of
the property, consisting of offices, maintenance facilities, shops, labs, and equipment storage.
Most of the buildings were built during the initial development of the property in the later 1940's
and 1950's. A newer vehicle maintenance building was built in the mid 1990's. A walk through
the buildings showed that the buildings had concrete flooring. Chemicals, oils, and hazardous
materials were stored on the concrete flooring and secured as needed. Two of the buildings use
oil burners, which are used to heat the building and dispose of used oil. The majority of the
maintenance and shop buildings had floor drains. Discussion with site personnel indicated that
the floor drains consisted of concrete vaults that were tied into the city sewer system. Settled
sludge within the vaults was pumped out as needed. The condition of the floor drains were
unknown, and it was unknown if all floor drains were tied into the city sewer system.
The property has used asphalt from old millings to pave all of the open space within the property.
The paving has taken place over time as old millings have become available. The open space
areas are used to store maintenance equipment / vehicles, supplies, and equipment that are able
to be stored outside. Two 10,000 gallon USTs (one diesel and one gasoline) are located on the
northeast corner of the property. There are two deicer tank sites and a salt /sand pile that is used
for winter road maintenance. There are no storm drains within the property boundaries, and
stormwater run -off flows towards the north where it exits the property onto Oak Street. A drop
inlet to a sub - surface city stormwater system is located at the corner of Oak and Rouse.
5.2 Adjoining Property
A list of adjacent landowners including property descriptions, names and addresses is included in
Appendix B, pages B271 to B272. The sites adjacent to the properties of interest are a mix of
commercial, industrial, and residential use. The Gallatin County Fairgrounds borders the
property to the west. To the north of the property is a relative recent commercial development
complex. To the south are the Bozeman City Shops and to the east are several industrial /
commercial businesses and residences. Stormwater run -off incidences have occurred where
contaminated stormwater was allowed to leave the property and flow down streets and towards
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty
11
285
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
52
adjacent properties.
6.0 Interviews
Hyalite personnel interviewed people with personal knowledge of the site and people with
regulatory responsibility and potential knowledge of the site. Communication records of
pertinent interviews are included in Appendix D. A list of persons contacted and interviewed is
included in the table below.
Table 2. Persons Interviewed
Contact
Basis for interview
Brit Fontenot
City of Bozeman owner representative — User Questionnaire form
Dustin Johnson
City of Bozeman
Kyle DeMars
MDT Maintenance Chief, Bozeman
Bill Pierce
MDT Maintenance Superintendent, Bozeman
Maryanne Mathews
MDT Office Administrator, Bozeman
Doug Compton
MDT Environmental Services, Helena
William Bergum
MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
Katie Emy
MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
Donnie McCurry
MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
John Vandelinder
Street Supervisor, City of Bozeman
John Alston
Water / Sewer Supervisor, City of Bozeman
Tammy Crone
Gallatin Water Quality District
Michelle
Adjacent Property, M &W Truck & Auto
Sue Shockley
AdjacentProperty, Gallatin County Fairgrounds
Ashly Ogle
Adjacent Property, Kenyon Noble
The interviews revealed some additional pertinent information concerning the site that had not
been included in the regulatory records. An adjacent landowner, M &W Truck & Auto, indicated
that in 1979 there was an oily substance discovered in Bozeman Creek (borders M &W property).
A letter from Department of Health Environmental Services dated June 7, 1979, identified the
source as the MDT site. The pipe was closed and plugged. This occurrence is evidence of
historic (1979) problems related to drainage from the MDT site. (Appendix D, pages D -16).
12
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
:.
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
53
7.0 Findings
Hyalite has performed a Phase I ESA on the State of Montana Department of Transportation
property (property of interest) located at 907 North Rouse, in Bozeman, within Township 2
South, Range 6 East, Section 6, Montana Prime Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana (Figure 1
and 2).
For the search radii that involved one mile, one -half mile, and adjacent to, the property of
interest, Hyalite found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions that would indicate
the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the subject
property under conditions that indicate any other existing release, past release, or material threat
of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or
into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property.
Based on Hyalite's investigations, there were several historic recognized environmental
conditions that involved releases of contaminants to the soils and underlying groundwater within
the property of interest.
• LUST releases
Facility ID
Release
ID
Date of
Release
Resolve Date
Active
1604052
345
7/16/1990
9/16/1999
No
1604052
1136
3/31/1992
7/22/2008
No
1604052
2319
8/17/1994
2/3/1995
No
• Remedial Response Site Release: This site was listed in 1997 as a result of a release
discovered during the removal of a concrete vault that contained road oil. The site was
delisted in 1999.
The above recognized releases have been resolved and likely do not pose an environmental
concern to the property. The MDT property currently has two 10,000 gallon USTs in use, one
diesel and one gasoline. The current 10,000 gallon USTs are currently in compliance with DEQ.
Suspect environmental conditions based on past releases, and the historic and present uses of the
property, include the possibility of hazardous substances or petroleum products beneath the
property of interest as a result of the use of floor drains located within the majority of the
buildings. In addition, there may be stained soils underlying the areas where there is currently
asphalt. These stains would likely be from past spills / leaks prior to paving the site.
This Phase I ESA has been performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527 -05 Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM,
2005). This Phase I ESA does not address asbestos - containing materials, radon, lead -based
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
13
287
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
54
paint, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health
and safety, ecological resources, endangered species or indoor air quality. Hyalite
Environmental was contracted through Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman. The findings and
conclusions generated or produced here are intended exclusively for the use of Brit Fontenot,
City of Bozeman, and specific parties designated by Brit Fontenot.
Chris Thelen, P.E. Hyalite Environmental, LLP
8.0 Opinion
6/28/2013
Date
It is the opinion of the environmental professional that based on the Findings (Section 7.0), it is
likely that contaminants exist on the property of interest that may require appropriate cleanup /
remediation if and when encountered during remodeling or demolition. The exact design /
configuration of the floor drains within the buildings throughout the property (including whether
they contain a concrete catch vault and outlet pipe), and the condition of these substructures are
not known, especially the drains that were installed during the early development of the property
in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The possibility of encountering contaminated soils is likely
during the removal / demolition of the buildings and subsequent floor drains. There is also a
potential for impacts to shallow groundwater underlying the drains and piping. Removal of
contaminated soils and possible groundwater monitoring may be needed. Any observance of
stained soils during removal of these structures will need to be reported to MDEQ, and
appropriate action(s) taken.
It is also possible that stained soils may be found during construction / demolition activities
beneath areas of asphalt or other surfaces. These situations would likely involve minimal
excavation / cleanup, as the "source" of the release if no longer present.
The scientific and technical reasons for concluding that identified potential environmental
material threats within the minimum approximate search distance from the parcel of interest do
not present a potential threat or recognized environmental condition on the parcel of interest
include:
• The potential environmental material threat has been resolved, often attested to by the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (examples: historic petroleum leaks
were cleaned up and resolved and neighboring USTs have been removed);
• The potential environmental material threat would not impact the parcel of interest
due to spatial distance from the site (examples: Sites that were identified in the
databases have intervening areas and properties that do not show impacts);
• The potential environmental material threat would not impact the parcel of interest
due to the amount of time since the potential environmental material threat was present
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
14
NW
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
55
(examples:: spills that occurred in the past would dissipate and no longer be hazardous
over time);
• The potential environmental material threat would not impact the parcel of interest
because it is hydraulically down gradient of the parcel of interest (examples: impacted
ground water that is down gradient of the parcel of interest; source of impacts to surface
water that is downstream of the parcel of interest).
9.0 Conclusions
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM
Practice E 1527 of State of Montana Department of Transportation property located at 907 N
Rouse, Bozeman, MT.
Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 10 of this report.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection
with the property. There is a good possibility that future excavation of the asphalt pavement or
demolition and excavation in areas of the existing buildings may uncover contaminated or
stained soils.
10.0 Deviations
There were no deletions or deviations from ASTM Practice E 1527 in performance of this Phase
I ESA.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty
15
NM
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
56
10.0 References
American Society for Testing Materials, 2005, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process," ASTM Standard E 1527
-- 05, West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing Materials, 2008, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forested or Rural
Land," ASTM Standard E 2247 - -08, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM -- see American Society for Testing Materials
Bates, Grace Kamp, 1994, "Gallatin County Places & Things, Present & Past," second edition,
Gallatin County Historical Society.
DNRC — see Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
EPA — see United States Environmental Protection Agency
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2013, "Ground Water Information Center," retrieved
June 2013, from http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/.
MDEQ -- see Montana Department of Environmental Quality
MDOA -- see Montana Department of Administration
Montana Department of Administration, 2013, "CAMA" database, retrieved June 2013, from
http://gis.doa.state.mt.us/index.html
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "CECRA Priority Sites" database,
retrieved June 2013 from http: / /www.deq.state.mt.us /index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Closed landfills," retrieved June
2013from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Controlled Allocation of Liability Act
(GALA) Program," retrieved June 2013, from http: / /www.deq.state.mt.us /index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "EnviroNet" database, retrieved June
2013, from http: // nris.state.mt.us /wis /environet/
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Open Landfills," retrieved June 2013,
from http: / /www.deq.state.mt.us /index.asp .
16
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDTProperty June 2013
57
290
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "UST list ", retrieved June 2012, from
http: / /www.deq.state.mt.us /index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "LUST field Sites ", retrieved June 2012,
from htip: / /www.deq.state.mt.us /index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Voluntary Cleanup and
Redevelopment Act (VCRA) Registry," retrieved June 2013, from
http: / /www.deq.state.mt.us /index.asp .
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2013, "Water Rights database,"
retrieved June 2013, from http: / /dnrc.mt.gov /wrd /water rts /default.asp
Montana Natural Resource Information System, 2013, retrieved June 2013, from
http://nris.state.mt.us
National Response Center, 2013, "ERNS Database," retrieved June 2013, from
http: / /www.nrc.uscg.mil /wdbc i/g wdbcgi.exe /WWWUSER/WEBDB.foia guery.show p
rms
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 2013, retrieved June 2013 from
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgweb/HistPres/SanbornMqps.htm.
Smith, Phyllis, 1996, "Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley: A History," Twodot Publishing,
Helena, 348 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, "Envirofacts Data Warehouse," retrieved
June 2013, from hLtp://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2013, " Bozeman Montana State University weather station
(241044)," June 2013, from http: / /wrcc.dri.edu.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
City of Bozeman - MDT Property
17
291
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
June 2013
58
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
ra f
C
;.S_
fift- W •
NEVA
if
APPENDIX B - ROSE PARK
w T�► �:o�uusvN R r.� E N - CIS
ON M"�i�TNC, ASSOCIATES Q i�� t eCtur'_
,,ff
A / A.E piny -0.-d Cwnp -y
m M YY
292
Printing: Layout Page
http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?41
59
293
1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:35 AM
Ali U
zQOz
Q Nl j ozo
N ox
Q 1ESEd a m o
o C/] -J
/� / CURB & GUTTER (�/) w
CULVERT z J
STORMDRAIN <I U Q
y
O MANHOLE Z
PlRs In ?
w 1G° — WATER MAIN
zz w0
�
FIRE HYDRANT ¢ a LU m
y
_ Ewa
- - --- r VALVE z
E - -- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC Z Qw0
—E — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC Ll wG�
, I �� 1 ttd w
GUY WIRE & ANCHOR xi
o I 0 UTILITY POLE (9mJ
WIRE FENCE
CREEK CONTROL POINT V
w— _- __�—__ BARRIER POST a o W p
I� I ��
1 PROPERTY PIN v1
ELECTRICAL BOX w
EDGE OF ASPHALT
EDGE OF GRAVEL < < p
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
- -- 3598 - -- CONTOUR 1
\j
FILL AREA
y ® INLET
IF
ICY-
15" X 22° CMP_ / I ; - - - - -- I\ z
/ -- - - - -�/ �7szss a72a2 / W Q
j
I
A V 1 1 If � S° 11 - -� / A� ' LL
kDIKI r slDewALK 27" RCP –�0 /_F.L4727.85 .X58 "' RCP W// FF.L. 4t 27.9 PIL 5 �— - E W
`\ 31° X 57" RCP W/ FET �liu 0 100' 200' 300' O
- -' - — — m b a72s.aa 11 I U m
L 1 it BENCHMARK, SEES NOTE d S C A L E
END OF ASPHALT I J BASIS OF BEARING: ANNIE SUB. PH. 2 W LL-
CENTERLINE OF OAK STREET Q O
BARRICADE
O
m U
O
BENCHMARK: ELEVATION 4734.83; SET BM ON NORTHWEST BOLT
OF FIRE HYDRANT, NORTH SIDE OF OAK STREET.
BOLT IS STAMPED "BM ".
1 ,HEFT N0.
B96-54.DWG SHEETS 1
60
294
f I V
- ♦ '"�` ` r �'� � , � - --
rn
x N
El
mm
IN
I -l1`, :, � '�.v.. •fit
� � •' %-' .
`
*4r
-1 LJ .. 1. ) •+
91 � t yF� •y. t .4� Q
JA
maw J4I 40
PROPERTY LINE
- WETLAND BOUNDARY El
� - -- ���.�r -_yam^: �� ��. ��..�_: ..., -•• -- -s t
r`?' oggie ► c'�
s00ze g5'w
O Q N
Q �
Yl ~Y
N
q
aw
to S,
w Z G
$ aZ0
I w
o
o�
H aN=
W t-
�i
J
h w
Z 3 S
I
as' 45'
l�
I
F,
0
h
0
IV Q:,1 .71 YV C
3
O
� � C
V
EnS1A7g 30_»iob tidtic Strest_
W oaa utaty £o ffmt
1]f 30
1
C �y
W (�
It
a0
cm
40 �
+Z
4
t
1
N
589'41'06 "W
1'47'54 "W 488.42'
.50'
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
L= 199.43'
R= 340.00'
DELTA = 33'36'24"
CHORD= 196.58'
N1 5'00' 33 "W
/—CL NEW 60' ROAD AND
UTILITY EASEMENT, 30'
EACH SIDE OF CL
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
1
1w L= 220.96'
R= 400.00'
DELTA= 31'38'59"
CHORD= 218.16'
C) {, N15'59'16 "W
CS N
00' EASEMENT CL TO SE LOT 5
OAK STREET
CENTER OF SECTION 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
SCALE 1" =200'
ROSE PARK
City of Bozeman
Property
BASIS OF BEARING: GPS
PaQMSIONAr L4Nb SURVEYOR'S CERME CAT10N:
I, James Goebel, Professional Land Surveyor, Montano Registration No.14531 LS, do herby certify that th
survey shows the true and correct dimensions of the above described easement.
r.
LOCATED IN THE ANNIE SUBDIVISION Signed
SECTION 2 —T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
ENGINEERING GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA Date:_
1015 S Montana St DRAWN BY: James M. Goebel
PO Box 3588
Butte, MT 597 01 -2 839 DATE: 2/07/07
Phone: (406) 723 -8213 DRAWING: N25 easement.dwg
Fax: (406) 723.8328
296
1, Cije�
Jams M. Goebel, i 4531 LS
N
-
- U
U
—
�� m
—o
- L
OJAMES 0 CD
AIL LAh
62
I OF 2
m
W
LOT 5 As,
N
Fellow Baptist Church
of Bozeman
N
°1
796 D, Page 2195
CP-,
1
1/2" REBAR AND
PLASTIC CAP SET
FOR THIS SURVEY ��
- �N
'ara
11
L4
589'41'06 "W
1'47'54 "W 488.42'
.50'
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
L= 199.43'
R= 340.00'
DELTA = 33'36'24"
CHORD= 196.58'
N1 5'00' 33 "W
/—CL NEW 60' ROAD AND
UTILITY EASEMENT, 30'
EACH SIDE OF CL
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
1
1w L= 220.96'
R= 400.00'
DELTA= 31'38'59"
CHORD= 218.16'
C) {, N15'59'16 "W
CS N
00' EASEMENT CL TO SE LOT 5
OAK STREET
CENTER OF SECTION 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
SCALE 1" =200'
ROSE PARK
City of Bozeman
Property
BASIS OF BEARING: GPS
PaQMSIONAr L4Nb SURVEYOR'S CERME CAT10N:
I, James Goebel, Professional Land Surveyor, Montano Registration No.14531 LS, do herby certify that th
survey shows the true and correct dimensions of the above described easement.
r.
LOCATED IN THE ANNIE SUBDIVISION Signed
SECTION 2 —T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
ENGINEERING GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA Date:_
1015 S Montana St DRAWN BY: James M. Goebel
PO Box 3588
Butte, MT 597 01 -2 839 DATE: 2/07/07
Phone: (406) 723 -8213 DRAWING: N25 easement.dwg
Fax: (406) 723.8328
296
1, Cije�
Jams M. Goebel, i 4531 LS
N
-
- U
U
—
�� m
—o
- L
OJAMES 0 CD
AIL LAh
62
I OF 2
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Stoneridge Subdivision
Bozeman, Montana
Submitted to:
Lowell Springer
Springer Group Architects
July 7, 1997
ALLIED.
M 07
ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
101 E. Main, Suite A
Bozeman, Montana 59715
(406) 582 -0221
July 7, 1997
Lowell Springer
Springer Group Architects
201 S. Wallace
Bozeman, Montana 59715
RE: Geotechnical report - Stoneridge Subdivision
Bozeman, MT
Dear Mr. Springer,
As requested, this report provides the geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Stoneridge
Subdivision located in Bozeman, Montana. Our scope of work consisted of a geologic
reconnaissance, excavation of twenty exploration test pits, and performing a geotechnical analysis
of the data. This report summarizes the work, conclusions, and recommendations.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The above referenced subdivision will be located within Bozeman in Section 2, Township 2 South,
Range 5 East (please see Figure 1). The major portion of the subdivision will be located west of
North 19th Street and will be bounded by Baxter Lane on the north and Durston on the south. At
this time, the site consists of approximately half farmland and half open fields vegetated with grass.
A creek runs north along the western portion of the subdivision. The site slopes gently to the north
and according to the USGS topographic map of the area, there is approximately 60 feet of relief from
the southern boundary of the subdivision to the northern boundary.
We understand from the information provided by Springer Group Architects, that a number of
buildings including the new Chamber of Commerce Building, Holiday Convenience Store, Holiday
Retirement Corporation, and Executive Office Suites are scheduled for construction in the near
future. The remainder of the subdivision will be built -out at a later time. Many of the buildings will
be constructed on a crawl space, however, we understand that there may be a few buildings
constructed on a slab -on- grade. This report will provide geotechnical and drainage recommendations
for both foundation configurations.
64
298
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
SITE GEOLOGY
The site is located on a geologic formation known as the Bozeman fan which consists of Quaternary
aged alluvium (Qf) made up predominately of alluvial fan deposits of sand and gravel from the
Gallatin Range. A geologic and hydrogeologic report prepared by Hackett, et al., (1960) indicates
that the alluvium overlies Tertiary-aged semi - consolidated silt, sand, and gravel which for our
purposes would be considered bedrock. Generally, the alluvium thins in the downslope direction
(north). In the vicinity of the proposed subdivision, Hackett, et. al.(l 960) reported that the depth to
Tertiary bedrock is approximately 130 feet based upon test wells in the area. The report also
indicates that a layer of fine- grained material composed primarily of windblown silt and clay (loess)
overlies the alluvial deposits across many areas of the Gallatin Valley. In general, the above
described conditions were encountered in the explorations conducted for this report.
One of the concerns of the Structural Engineer may be a determination of the soil profile (i.e., depth
to bedrock) of the area for the purposes of performing a seismic analysis. The UBC defines four
different types of soil profiles depending upon the subsurface conditions present. We consider the
soil profile type in the area to be either an S, or S2, depending upon the depth to bedrock. In an S,
profile, the depth to bedrock is less than 200 feet, while in an S2 profile the depth is greater than 200
feet. Based upon the report by Hackett, we believe you should assume the depth to bedrock is less
than 200 feet. As such, we recommend that an S, profile is assumed for any seismic calculations
required. However, please note that this recommendation is based upon admittedly limited data.
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS
Exploration Test Pits and Laboratory Soils Testing
The site was explored by means of twenty test pits (designated TP -1 and TP -20) the approximate
locations of which are shown in Figure 2. The test pits were excavated on June 19, 1997 using a
John Deere 210C backhoe operated by Brett Haggerty. The test pits ranged in depth from 4 to 9 feet.
Test pit excavation was observed and directed by Craig Madson from Allied Engineering Services,
Inc. who visually identified the exposed soils, obtained representative soil samples, and compiled
a log of each exploration. Logs of the test pits are included in the Appendix of this report. Soil
relative densities presented in the test pit logs were estimated based upon nuclear density testing of
the native soils, probing of the test pit walls, and the relative ease or difficulty of excavation.
In order to determine the engineering properties of the soils encountered, laboratory testing was
conducted on representative samples taken from the test pits. The tests consisted of 23 moisture
content determinations, 2 gradations, 3 atterberg limits, and 2 standard proctor compaction tests.
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page @I
299
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
The tests were conducted in accordance with the appropriate ASTM test procedure. The samples
tested are identified by both the test pit from which the sample was taken, as well as the depth at
which the sample was taken. The test results are included in the Appendix at the end of the report.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in each test pit are described in some detail in the test pit logs
provided in the Appendix. The locations of the test pits are shown in Figure 2 which includes an
excerpt of the conceptual plan for the subdivision as provided by Springer Group Architects. An
overall summary of the conditions encountered at each of the proposed locations for the buildings
scheduled for construction in the near future is provided below.
Holiday Convenience Store
The proposed location of the Holiday Convenience Store is at the corner of 19th Street and
Durston as indicated in Figure 2. Two test pits designated TP -1 and TP -2 were excavated
at this location. In general, the upper 1 to 3 feet consisted of fill material. Underlying this
was 3 to 4 feet of soft to medium stiff, light brown, windblown clayey SILT (loess).
Generally, this material become softer with depth with unconfined strengths ranging from
0.5 to 2.0 tsf. Medium dense silty sandy GRAVEL with rounded cobbles (alluvium) was
encountered at depths of 4 to 7 feet. Groundwater was found at a depth of 9 feet in TP -2.
Executive Office Suites
TP -3 and TP -4 were located in the vicinity of the proposed Executive Office Suites as seen
in Figure 2. The following conditions were encountered at this location. The upper 8 to 10
inches of both test pits consisted of a black, clayey SILT topsoil. Underlying this was
approximately 3 feet of very soft, moist to very moist, windblown, silty lean CLAY or loess.
Medium dense, silty sandy GRAVEL (alluvium) suitable for bearing was encountered at a
depth of 3.5 to 4 feet in both test pits. Groundwater was found at a depth of 8 feet in both
test pits.
Holiday Retirement Corporation
The proposed location for the Holiday Retirement Corporation is just north of Oak Street
near the corner of Woodland Drive. Test pits 11 and 12 were located in this area. Generally,
similar conditions were encountered in both test pits. The upper foot consisted of a black
topsoil. Extending from a depth of 1 foot to approximately 4 feet was a very soft layer of
Ruiea Logineering Services, Inc.
300
Page &
Lowell Springer ProjectAl4 -01
July 7, 1997
windblown clayey SILT (loess) unsuitable for bearing. Groundwater was encountered at a
depth of 4 to 4.5 feet, essentially at the interface of the silt and gravel layers. The inflow of
groundwater was quite substantial at this location.
Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber of Commerce building is to be located on the east side of North 19th Street
near the corner of Baxter Lane and 19th. As indicated in Figure 2, TP -18 and TP -19 were
located in this area. Of the previously described building locations, the subsurface conditions
will likely be the most difficult at this location. The upper 4 to 6 feet of both test pits
consisted of very soft, wet silty lean CLAY unsuitable for bearing. Substantial seepage
zones were encountered as shallow as 3 feet below the ground surface. Silty sandy GRAVEL
suitable for bearing was found at depths of 4 to 6 feet. Groundwater in the area was
generally encountered at depths of 4 to 6 feet, at the interface of the clay and gravel.
In general, variations of the above described conditions were encountered throughout the remainder
of the subdivision. Fine - grained windblown deposits consisting of silt and clay overlaid sand and
gravel found at depth. The depth to gravel did not exceed 6.5 feet in any of the test pits excavated.
As discussed later, we generally consider the fine- grained deposits to be unsuitable for foundation
support due to their low bearing capacity and susceptibility to collapse. For support of floor slabs
and pavement over the fine- grained soils, one to two feet of compacted granular fill will be required
and allowances made such that settlement will occur prior to placement of slabs and pavements.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in nineteen test pits at depths ranging from 3 feet to 9 feet. Generally,
groundwater was shallower moving northward across the subdivision. Groundwater monitoring
wells were not installed. However, please note that the groundwater levels in the Bozeman fan can
fluctuate seasonally. Based upon observations of monitoring wells installed on the Bozeman fan
during other projects, groundwater levels are typically highest during the summer months (June, July,
and August). This same trend of seasonal fluctuations is consistent with the monitoring well data
provided by Hackett et al. (1960). However, the nature and extent of the seasonal fluctuations will
probably change as a result of the change in land use from irrigated farmland to developed building
sites. The extent of the seasonal fluctuations that occur at this site will be difficult to predict without
further information.
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. pages
301
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES
Susceptibility of the Native Silt and Clay to Collapse
Laboratory testing was conducted on the native silt and clay (loess) materials to determine its
susceptibility to collapse. The collapsible nature of loess is a result of its high void ratio which
develops due to grass and twigs that grow up through the loess as the soil is deposited. This results
in a low density soil with a network of fine channels that remain even after the grass and twigs decay.
Generally, correlations may be made between the Atterberg limits of the native loess and its
susceptibility to collapse. One such correlation proposed by Priklonski (1952) utilizes a coefficient
of collapse (KD) given by the following:
K (natural moisture content) - (plastic limit)
n _ plasticity index
KD < 0 - highly collapsible soils
KD > 0.5 - non collapsible soils
KD > 1.0 - swelling soils
Based upon our laboratory testing, we would consider the native silt and clay to be marginally
susceptible to collapse (KD is between 0 and 0.5). This conclusion is supported by previous density
testing we have performed on these materials as compared to accepted USBR standards. As such,
we believe this material to be an inadequate foundation material. We therefore recommend that the
footings not bear in this material, but either on the native gravel encountered at depth or structural
fill bearing in the gravel. This is further discussed in a later section.
Potential for Liquefaction in the Native Gravel
At this time, there is no universally accepted criterion for judging the susceptibility of a given soil
to liquefaction. However, the soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated, uniformly
graded gravel and sand deposits. Empirical methods that relate standard penetration test results (N-
values) to liquefaction potential have been developed (Seed and Idriss, 1982) but require different
and more expensive soil exploration methods which were beyond the scope of this evaluation.
However, based upon our exploration and our knowledge of the conditions necessary for
liquefaction, some conclusions may be drawn.
Amea Lngineering Services, Inc. Page Ef8
302
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
In general, liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated, cohesionless soils when dynamic loading
(typically from earthquakes) rearranges the soil particles into a denser configuration, thereby
temporarily creating excess pore water pressure and decreased effective stresses. As indicated in the
test pit logs, nuclear density testing was conducted on the native gravel in both TP -6 and TP -7. The
dry unit weights of the gravel ranged from 112 to 121 pcf. Based upon the results of the Standard
Proctor (ASTM D -698) conducted on samples of the native gravel, it may be concluded that the
native gravel is in a medium dense to dense state (approximately 86% to 93% of the maximum
proctor density). In addition, the native gravel is well - graded as indicated by the gradation
performed. As such, given the density and gradation of the native gravel, we believe this material
is not susceptible to liquefaction. However, please note, this opinion is based upon experience and
judgement. Further testing would be required to completely rule out the potential for liquefaction
at the site.
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
General
As described earlier, fine- grained windblown deposits ranging in depth from 3 to 6.5 feet are present
across the entire subdivision. In our opinion, these materials are not suitable for foundation support
due to their relative compressibility and potential susceptibility to collapse. It is therefore our
recommendation that all unsuitable material be removed from beneath the footings. Foundation
support should bear either directly on the sand and gravel materials encountered in all twenty test
pits, or on a structural fill bearing directly on this dense material. Please note, it is quite likely that
dewatering equipment will be required during construction, especially in the northern portions of the
subdivision (i.e., where the groundwater levels were highest).
Given the high moisture content of much of the native soils especially to the north, we strongly
recommend limiting the amount of stripping to the constraints discussed below. Rather, the
emphasis of your work should be to bring up the grade at each site with compacted fill. We
recommend a minimum of 12 inches of compacted structural fill including at least 6 inches of
washed rock be placed beneath all concrete slabs. Twenty -four (24) inches of compacted structural
fill should be placed under slabs in areas of high groundwater and soft conditions. In order to reduce
the amount of settlement under concrete slabs due to organic decay, we recommend stripping the
topmost organic soil. Parking lots should be constructed with a minimum of 12 inches of sub -base
course plus 3 inches of base course under all pavement sections. In areas of high groundwater and
soft soils such as in the northern sections of the subdivision, we recommend an additional 12 inches
of compacted sub -base course under all pavement sections. The topsoil under pavement sections
Aluea Lngmeering Services, Inc. Page 69
303
Lowell Springer ProjectAl4 -01
July 7, 1997
should be stripped if site conditions allow (i.e., the site is not too wet). The subgrade should be
allowed to consolidate under the fill prior to placement of concrete slabs and pavement sections.
In the following sections, recommendations will be made concerning allowable bearing pressures,
lateral earth pressures, drainage configurations, etc. Unless stated otherwise, one may assume that
the recommendations provided are applicable to either a crawl space or slab -on -grade foundation
configuration. Figures 3 and 4 provide typical foundation configurations for a crawl space and slab -
on- grade, respectively.
Footing Design
The medium to dense native silty sandy GRAVEL with cobbles will provide suitable foundation
support for buildings. However, the depth to the gravel may be as great as 6 to 7 feet in some areas.
As such, we recommend using spread and strip footings bearing either in this material or on an
engineered fill bearing on this material. Construction will consist of removal of unsuitable material
from beneath the footings down to the dense native material, followed by construction of an
engineered fill back up to the footing elevation if necessary. The footings will then be poured
directly on the medium dense native material or the engineered fill.
Assuming this recommendation is followed, the allowable bearing pressure for all footings bearing
directly in the dense native gravel or on compacted structural fill bearing in this material is 2500 psf
(pounds per square foot). We recommend using strip footings with a minimum width of 18 inches
and spread footings with a minimum width of 24 inches. Minimum footing widths may govern
footing design. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the footing design recommendations. The following
qualifiers should be strictly heeded in the footing design:
♦ All exterior footings should be founded at least 4 feet below the exterior grade to prevent
frost action beneath the footings.
♦ Footing drains and/or sub - drains depending upon the foundation configuration should be
provided as shown in Figures 3 and 4. The drains should daylight well away from the
building site in an approved location.
We estimate that the above recommended bearing pressures will result in total settlements of less
than 3/4 ", with only minor differential settlements. We should be retained to review the foundation
plans and observe all foundation excavations when they are complete to assure that conditions are
as expected and that our recommendations are being followed.
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page To
304
Lowell Springer ProjectA14 -01
July 7, 1997
Lateral Earth Pressures
Any buried foundation walls fixed at the top should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of
60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Cantilevered retaining walls which are not connected to the structure
may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf. These pressures assume the walls are
drained and backfilled as described herein such that hydrostatic pressures cannot develop. The
lateral earth loads provided are for static conditions and should be factored appropriately to represent
lateral earth pressures during seismic events. To avoid damage to the walls, hand operated
compaction equipment should be used directly adjacent to foundation walls that are not buried on
both sides.
Lateral forces from wind, seismic loadings, or from earth pressures on the opposite side of the
building will be resisted by passive earth pressure against the buried portions of structures and by
friction against the bottom. Passive earth pressures in compacted backfill can be assumed to have
a maximum equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf for the material placed above the sub - drains and 150
pcf for material below the sub - drains.
In general, the native silt and clay materials are not suitable as wall backfill given their relatively
high moisture content in most locations (especially to the north). Structural fill meeting the
gradation provided in Figures 3 and 4 should be used as wall backfill. Compaction requirements are
provided in the next section.
We recommend that a coefficient of friction of 0.5 be used between cast -in -place concrete and the
underlying native sand and gravel materials or structural fill. Actual footing loads (not factored or
allowable loads) should be used in calculating frictional resistance to sliding at the base. The above
values have no built in factor of safety, so an appropriate factor of safety for each particular load case
should be used in all subsequent calculations.
Excavation and Backfill
The native loess materials encountered in all twenty test pits was excavated with little trouble.
Assuming uniform conditions across the site, it is expected that an excavator or loader will have little
difficulty excavating the native loess.
All structural fill placed beneath footings shall be select material compacted to a dense unyielding
condition. The material should consist of a reasonably well - graded, crushed sand and gravel, free of
organics and debris, and conforming with the gradation provided in Figures 3 and 4. The native
material at the site is not suitable for reuse as structural fill under footings. Structural fill under
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
305
Page $1
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
footings should be placed in uniform layers and compacted to 97 percent of the Standard Proctor
maximum dry density based on ASTM D -698. In general, the thickness of soil layers before
compaction should not exceed 10 inches for heavy equipment compactors and 6 inches for hand -
operated mechanical compactors. Structural fill under footings should be placed in trenches a
minimum of 4 feet wide at the base. The actual trench width shall be computed based upon the
width of the footing and depth to bearing (please see Figures 3 and 4). The configurations provided
will allow the load to spread out from the edges of the footing and remain within the structural fill.
As discussed earlier, structural fill should be used as wall backfill. Wall backfill should be placed
in uniform layers and compacted to 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D -698).
Floor Support
As indicated earlier, a minimum of 12 inches of structural fill including 6 inches of washed rock
should be placed beneath all concrete slabs as shown in Figure 4. All structural fill placed beneath
concrete slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its Standard Proctor density (ASTM D-
698). This material should conform with the material specifications provided in Figure 4. The upper
6 inches placed directly beneath slabs should consist of washed rock hydraulically connected to the
exterior sub - drains or existing surface drainage. In areas of high groundwater and soft conditions
such as that encountered in the northern sections of the subdivision, an additional 12 inches of
structural fill should be used (i.e., a total of 18 inches of structural fill and 6 inches of washed rock).
We recommend stripping the topmost organic soil and proof - rolling the site before the placement
of fill. The subgrade should be allowed to consolidate under the placed fill prior to pouring any
concrete slabs.
Pavement Sections
Requirements for pavement sections will vary according to location and loading. However, for
planning purposes, we recommend 24 inches of sub -base and 3 inches of base course be used under
pavements in areas with high groundwater and soft soils such as was encountered in the northern half
of the subdivision. In other areas with more favorable conditions, we recommend that the pavement
sections be placed on a minimum of 12 inches of sub -base course and 3 inches of base course.
Specifications for both the sub -base and base course are provided in Figure 4. We recommend
compacting the sub -base and base course to 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D -698). All
fill needed to bring the site up to the subgrade elevation should be close to the optimum moisture
content and compacted to 92 percent of the Standard Proctor. As indicated earlier, if site conditions
allow, the topmost organic layer should be stripped prior to placement of fill. The native soil should
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page -&
306
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
also be proof - rolled to identify soft spots. The native subgrade should be allowed to consolidate
before the placement of pavement sections.
Foundation Drainage and Damp - Proofing - Crawl Space Foundations
Seasonal saturation of the near surface soils due to snow melt, rainfall, or rising groundwater is
possible. To prevent accumulation of water in the foundation backfill, drainage and damp - proofing
elements should be implemented into the design of the structure. The recommended drainage and
damp proofing elements for a crawl space foundation are depicted in Figure 3 and are summarized
as follows:
♦ Footing drains consisting of 4 inch diameter slotted or perforated pipe embedded in an
envelope of drainage sand and gravel should be installed along the base of all exterior
footings. As an alternative, drain pipe embedded in an envelope of washed rock and
wrapped with an approved non -woven geotextile drainage fabric may be used. In order to
prevent surface infiltration of water, the upper one foot of material should consist of a low
permeability topsoil or pavement. The footing drains should daylight to an approved
location.
♦ Foundation walls other than crawl spaces should be damp - proofed with a suitable
commercial foundation coating.
Foundation Drainage - Slab -On -Grade Foundations
The recommended drainage elements for slab -on -grade foundations are depicted in Figure 4 and are
summarized as follows:
♦ Sub - drains consisting of 4 inch diameter slotted or perforated pipe embedded in an envelope
of drainage sand and gravel should be installed around the exterior of all floor slabs as shown
in Figure 4. As an alternative, drain pipe embedded in 1 inch minus washed rock and
wrapped in an approved geotextile may be used. The invert elevation of the sub - drains
should be at least 12 inches below the finish floor elevation. The sub - drains are not
necessary wherever the exterior grade is lower than 12 inches below the finish floor
elevation. The sub - drains will prevent the accumulation of water behind the foundation
walls which potentially may leak into the building, as well as decreasing the risk of
developing excess pore pressures as a result of an earthquake. All sub - drains should daylight
at an approved location on the site under construction. To help prevent surface infiltration
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 1f3
307
Lowell Springer Project A 14-01
July 7, 1997
of water, the upper 1 foot of material around all buildings should consist of low permeability
topsoil or pavement.
♦ 6 inches of washed rock and a vapor barrier should be placed under all floor slabs. The
washed rock will serve as a capillary break. Weep holes should be used to hydraulically
connect the rock to either the sub - drains or the existing surface drainage.
♦ Final surface grading should provide positive surface drainage away all buildings. Roof
drainage and sub - drains should be discharged well away from the structure.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
General
As indicated earlier, the native fine- grained soils are quite soft and compressible, especially in the
northern sections of the proposed subdivision. For this reason, we recommend rough grading the
entire site (including parking areas) prior to excavation for the foundations. In this way, any
settlement induced by the placement of fill will take place prior to the construction of any slabs or
pavement sections.
We also recommend installation of monitoring hubs following rough grading in order to track the
time rate of consolidation. A good test area for monitoring hubs may be at the site of the proposed
Chamber of Commerce building where the native fine- grained materials encountered during the
exploration were very soft and highly susceptible to consolidation settlements.
LIMITATIONS
In our opinion, the most likely damages from geotechnical -related problems in this area are with
regard to the potential for post construction settlement of inadequately compacted fills or improperly
designed drainage. For this reason, we should be retained for the duration of build -out to review
foundation and grading plans; and to observe excavations and fill placement to assure the conditions
encountered are as expected and that our recommendations are being followed.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report assume that site conditions are not
substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If during construction, subsurface
conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present,
we should be advised at once such that we may review those conditions and reconsider
recommendations where necessary.
Attied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 114
308
Lowell Springer ProjectA14 -01
July 7, 1997
This report was prepared for the use of the owner /architect or engineer in the planning of the
subdivision. It should be made available to prospective contractors or the contractor for information
on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from
the exploration logs and discussion of subsurface conditions.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
,,,,
Crag RAadson Douglas S. Chandler, PhD, PE
Geotechnical Engineer Principal
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location
Figure 2 - Approximate Test Pit Locations
Figure 3 - Foundation Excavation, Drainage & Backfill for a Crawl Space
Figure 4 - Foundation Excavation, Drainage & Backfill for a Slab -On -Grade
Appendix - Test Pit Logs and Soil Testing Results
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report
CA projects W14- 01 \report\A]4- Ol.rpt
ff[ttea Cngtneertng JerviceS, Inc.
309
Page 115
Lowell Springer Project A14 -01
July 7, 1997
REFERENCES
Hackett, O.M., Visher, F.N., McMurtrey, R.G., and Steinhilber, W.L. (1960), "Geology and Ground -
Water Resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Montana ", U.S. Geologic Survey Water -
Supply Paper 1482, United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Priklonski, V.A. (1952). "Gruntovedenia- Vtoraid Chast ", Gosgeolzdat, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. (1982). "Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes",
Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
Allied Lngineering Services, Inc.
310
Page 1-A
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
S
( _
fift- W •
NEVA
if
APPENDIX C - YMCA SITE
w rr� IM MORRISO N R O E N arc aPCtur CIS
, ■0 4 ,INC ASSOCIATES
mmw
311
Printing: Layout Page
http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?51
77
312
1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:52 AM
POINT
NORTHING
EASTING
ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION
576
2973.593
3451.713
4748.19
RPC SET
577
2871.630
3687.394
4748.53
RPC SET
601
5090.608
5236.932
4704.36
GPS -CP,PK IN WALK
0 100' 200' 300'
V I I
S C A L E
AREA WEST OF FENCE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION AT TIME OF SURVEY
A I /1Tr
1. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE
SHOWN BASED ON MARKS PLACED BY ONE —CALL UTILITY
LOCATORS AND BY CONSTRUCTION AND /OR RECORD
DRAWINGS.
2. THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE BOZEMAN CITY
VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON BENCHMARKS IN BAXTER
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
3. NO DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FOR EASEMENTS FOR
BAXTER — BORDER OR SPRING DITCH. WIDTHS AND
MAINTENANCE LOCATIONS ARE UNKNOWN.
4. DOCUMENT #2014828 DESCRIBES A WATER AND
SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN THE OAK STREET EASEMENT.
O
Lf')
N
Lv
N
N
Z
STREET DEDICATION
(DOC. #2103146)
I
N 89 °41'58 E 280.21'
BAXAR
- -IM -TO INV OUT= -12.20
4 "X4" GREEN WOOD POST
00 Ld
I A I
NO 1 ° 12'45 "E
\ ,, _ _ � \
/i����� %;� - _ = _ I
6 BOARD FEN E
325.1 5 ' 11� Q<( ( I r-
Q ( ( = a _`
I'} ,�� -- -- _%
Illlllif�-� 1 II i �o° p N '
� 'r ; IIIIII�I \1_j AII � 0 -�
I I�ii l
,llll 700 V�
I 1� �ul 1111 1 11lin l
N89 041 56 E 800.30 111 W
v >o I IvV �i'I 1
7Z7;
----- - - - - -- \ -- - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -
- - -� -
v ]' v
I � \
/n T o\ I o
x ' \�� 1 Io \/ / / L'�\ �J EASEMENT CURVE TABLE
x Bp < , °�_��A vvv �l �'.;,, �' ;I ( // �/ 7/$ 25�33 ' CURVE RADIUS DELTA ANGLE ARC LENGTH CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH
D vv v i1 I os n1
�- H \\ I `. I W 75.\ 10 i > > » r n r
D11'� - `� < \ ` ` I I / \ / \/ �, \1 C1 450.00 08 °00 00 62.83 NO2 °26'0 9 W 62.78
% / > `\ \ .
�`1, / / �� I C2 1 550.00' 1 08 °00'00" 1 76.79' 1 NO2 °26'09 "W 76.73'
\ "(
\
X �Q, `\ \ \�� \� < -`` \,;` O / j \\ \\ 1 \I� I ��\ / EASEMENT LINE TABLE
R= 1275.00
LINE BEARING DISTANCE
4704
L= 682.28 L1 NO1 °33 51 E 313.10
x V �
cp\ _ / / YMCA �� \o \\\ 0 =30 °39'37" 12 N06 °26'09 "W 102.52'
Ch Brg= N26 54 16 W
06) \\y \ \ \\� \\ \ o� �1f�\ 1 \ 1 1111 \\
CP 1 ,1 \\ v Ch= 674.17
NOTE FRO LYNN BACON: 1111 I �J
W -2 edges a unstable and \ \1 I �� _ 1 \\ \ \708
will expand 1 15 fee on east side , 1 \
\� ^_J / / �,--r and may contin e west to BB ditch) I i �o�
Y
/ �\ yob 0)/ /,' j 1� i / \ \� -
�- 4708 - - -- r \I `ko II ,\ /< o , \11; I
;�,` I \ \ \ \\� f
°
/ 1 �`, v r's, -� R= 1200.00
�/ l \ \\\ \ �O 0 \� \
o I ` \\
cP, �, L= 1642.55
<o' A=78-25'33"
Ch Br(�]= N50 °47' 14 "W
�\ ���/ \� 111 _f ? I ! \\ \ 7
x I II � '
W
`\ I 1 � � � I � 1 \\ �i / c�' \ 4712 `\ \ \� � I
\ \\
It F, o \' N 2 \ \,\ K90°�10;00 "E Ch= 1517.29'
�'' vV 11111 12" HDPE 1 �, -�V
4710 111 , ' ; `\ \ \� 373.65
v / II
41'7
'�.A
' �< 75.00 � PUBLIC STREET
`� 1 I c� z 1; �\ 1 �,�.- ���� -''' - - -____ \f , �' EASEMENT (DOC. 2258764)
C
4714 A I %4
A I 1 � 1\ � 3 �IN\� S' /� 'ice � �• � \�� 11 � - -� v � �i
"
\ / / \ 111 1 I e, P ----------- \ \� 111 ". \� \\ \- ��` �\ F -
i \ \ I I 1 I JJ I \ ` \
N . \ '
\\ �\ li X11 "\ I �i�i! ull
x 1/,
u
\\ ' >74 ' \\ \O I \
/ / \ I I \ c?
x �
1 11 1 - - -- "" N90 °00'OO.,,W 50' '
x I \\� \\✓ \ / \` m \�I u 1 \\ .�, \�jIV�� - -� I / %'; C \��\ \\�\ \ \IJ �r \ _ _ -.�_� IIII \\ 11i IIII II i - 3
` 1 -- - - - - -- -\ - - -_- g -720 -7
j �� /P �� 736,\ \ \ Inul 78 , _ r
x � � � N L `, 1 I � I� � ��,�� 1_ v 1 Iv nll 111 � � � / �
\ \6
DITCH
�''\ \ I \\ ; 111111 �1; 11 \ yd \\ \ ��_ \\ 111 I X11 VIII �_L _L I / //
v \I II � I �, `,) l I I J� '� / ,If�� It i
x \\��, - - -- -- ,,�' W I/ \ , `, 1 ' 111 �, ' �%i �\ �� \\ - 18 i 11° II I ' I
III\ �,',I 1 1 1 1 4� 1 i VIII ,p I I /
11 1 V ,`,` 1111 III / I o I N
11 1 \ `� ' 1 l I \ 78 ; Iflll111 / \� \ N
X
`�
\ \\ 1 ------------ i I li 111 IIII�L� I I
�> 8 ____----- - - - - -- \ Q,° ' �,--- - I III ,,
/ l g I I\ 1 It
- , 1111
- - - -- ( z
W �.� \Vv � _ � ST R...1 �� ___ - -- �
471 8
%% 4 14 >, - -- - \ /' I I 1 i i l �,
i I I \ � 11 / / I.
A \\ I 1 V 111 \ `` A /� j'- X11 1 ��
24" ACCMP�s
1111 j1
\� II / � II <II I�\ Q 'a`, � ,�,';',7 �---- - - - - -- _\�'• \> ` � // `\ \\ h � \ \�� / \ \lii� it .'' � / / .��I.
�'2
x
��
W —� 2 r 1 I
/
VVV
x 1111 II I \111 1' 1 S \\�� -- �'' - -�_ i , _ -----------
II ��`\ III j1 \O -,�� 4720 - --� \` - J L I� -- - - - - -- �` I ,\ \1 422
x �_ -- 47 I ��� I I� 111 - _�'��- \� I I �\ - < ��' �`• ; �-_� 111 1111`VA --A
��
4722 111 \
` rl Illy _
/ /__� v v V`.
'V/ �- \ 718 ! \ 11
111 I �� '/i ��,� �X�- 1
S L
472 v r`. vvv
\ 2 -
It 1>
-�
� I
/
` _ \
i
1 ill
vA I /
I
`
1111
)III I oo
r'� \
_
�1 4726 I
��'//"_-- ' 1111/1111 II1r\ I \ \\ /�v ' _PI
��C< - - -� O I 7��' /1 \1111 ,111 I �\ / _PI l
�j'`__
11111 II / �\-� ___��`'�_ __� '� //l<<� �ji'i' /iii - 472
\ \ - -, `'' _ ">:, � \x - -�/ lk i / r i r -' � �
i ` I V 1 �� _ -__ ' / l �� -�i 'i/ '� 4j26
1 " - -__
4724 i I / _ 4726 _- �' ��� - _��� /�' l ql p \ of
x I 1 1 I 1I ___- 4726 - - - -' ------------- - - - - -- =- -- -- - - - - - -- = =_�+_ - - - --
' _
- - - - - -- -------- - - -- -- 4 72 a---------------- - - - - -- / — ---
hl�� IIII
\ �\ - -- ,� ` X28 -\ 111 j'1 pi i ; �� 171
4726 __ -- ,\\ I�
45.00' �\ 1 ' ' �/ ��� — �- _ _ " ; �,, N,I , IV i �\ / I "- `\ � ) /i � /�� -- � � � - 4,28 \i / I 1 �` � � I I
N1 q� BB /
/ � r/ /,% / \\ \ " /'
x DITCH '2< /'' N ''r' , \� 10 kiDPE- k)RIGIN UNKNOWN I I
x /// /� / / 1 I < I HDPE- ORI UN
\ 47
x - - - --� � / � > / / I 1; �\ _ 15., GIN KNOWN
�- I / �\ ' - 474728 2
x \\\ x\ -- 4�3� 1 l I
C -
- - -- ___ —_ _ - - -_= _ — - - _ -- _ - - -- - - - - --
4726 y/ -
\ 4730 _�-i ------ 47�2� _RIM IINV. OUT = ?(SAND)
/ �� Za -- �/�- <' \ \ '�� // - - - - --j� r==----------== k- >31t = == - - _--- =_4732
_
---- - - - - -- 1 i \ \ \
� ��� 18° HDPE �> r ��- �0
\� - -- '��
O I - 4730 - — _ -
__ -_
-- _ - ---_ -- ----- - -- - - --1 TRIM -T- O INV. IN= -6.3 _ -- RIM TO-INV.-IN =7.76
2 — 74732—_— - � � - 32 3o 4 ' G
x —x� — — x x - -x x x R__1 -
--
E i E i E E F - 44 4 rG
N89 °52'48 "W 2636.23'
313
- 473- --
RIM TO INV. IN= -6.82'
+CP -601
LEGEND
EXISTING DESCRIPTION
O
O
- - - - -• -- • r - -• 5 -1 - --
-341 5-
�Q
+
0
0
m
— xxxxxx-
EXISTING EASEMENT
MANHOLE
BARRIER POST
BUSH OR SHRUB
CABLE TV RISER
CABLE TV RISER FLUSH
CONCRETE
CONTOUR
CONTROL POINT
CURB BOX
CURB & GUTTER
CULVERT
DELINEATOR POST
DITCH
EDGE OF ASPHALT
EDGE OF GRAVEL
ELECTRICAL BOX
ELECTRICAL BOX
FENCE — WIRE
FENCE — WOOD
FIRE HYDRANT
GAS METER
GUY WIRE
INLET
® IRRIGATION VALVE
A LIGHT POLE
E OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
TEL
0
a
D
n
0
-CT\/-- -
- - E - -
G
S
4
SD
/ - - T - -
O W
O
RIM T INV. OUT =- 11.48'
a
RIM T
LO
•
I v /
IGREEN POST
INV. OUT= - 11.43'
TO INV. OUT =- 10.66'
OVERHEAD TELEPHONE
POWER POLE
RETAINING WALL
SPRINKLER
COMMUNICATIONS RISER
COMMUNICATIONS RISER FLUSH
PROPOSED WETLAND SETBACK
TRAFFIC SIGN
TREE — CONIFEROUS
TREE — DECIDUOUS
TREE — SMALL
TREE LINE
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
WETLAND
GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM DRAIN
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
WATERLINE
VALVE
WATER WELL
/ STREET ESMT DOC. #2103146
EASEMENT WIDTH
� AMBIGUOUS IN DOCUMENT
RIM TO INV. OUT= ?(SAND)
RIM TO INV. OUT = ?(SAND)
TO INV. IN= -7.75'
I TO INV. OUT= -9.59'
W
• QZO
1 ZOQ
zz-
o=
~ �Q
CA
O
U
J
J
w
�0
W�I J
WY
W
U) <
O �o
w ,gym
C 01
cUi) c`Jn cUn W
LLI W W O J
0 0 0 �WZ
QyO
wow
w
CD Cn J
Jim
Q Q Q
0 r) 0
A
H
DRAWN BY: JEU
DESIGNED BY:
QUALITY CHECK:
DATE: 22 JUNE 2007
JOB NO. B07 -042
FIELDBOOK FB150/57 -61
I
�I
F_
D
O
_Z
I.L
Q
a J
J �
a
ZZ
OQ
♦^ G
W N
DC O
F- 0
Z�
O�
Z�
� C
H ^c
Q li
J
W
J
Q
V C6
H
M
Z
O
F_
,,W
v+
r
W
a.
Q
CD
O
a.
O
W
CAD NO. 7042T1 .DWG
SHEET OF
c
o
m
j
o
o
C
47
�1
4
p�
J
i�BQ,L S>Md VNVIHQw
31VU A8
31VU
All
3LV0 AB
i =i"a - Ntl'Id 1131SVW
ivu�
�ooas NIJVd -lVN0I93U AlNnO3 NIIVIIVE)
II i;
CQ
CD
It
rr - M4 CD J
4 � >
I
i
// 11L
r
— �.0 (D0
O
Y
_ a
os,
- O --OCR _0G (D
- - f
Al
79
314
y
da
0 F-
-
a ry
�
D
o 0) 0
Z Um
ww �5 J
�D
Y w
•- Z
0 J m
W CI o" m V)
d \O
Ld
U J O, 0 W
oo�Z W
O
O - Y Z
W Ocn W�= (n QJ()
DD z0�
WW J�v m QQ(n
Dcr)a_ Q
:2 z <(/ ZC< 0��� OZ
ZCDCD
>> mW�m
�gwm�
LLJ
(n�mm�0m oQ0�QYQ� JO
WZ WWZ�Z�Y���
of Zd�0 M, Y >_�
~z000Z =m0 >- OwQ Qa->
�l ��Z<00QOQOW�
JNQ0JQO00w�DW �—jm0
W NNL�ZQmWWZQQQw�HY�oN�Z
WJH
OOZN
�W��OOJ
C) C.) WUJ Q� QFZ F--�C) H —�
.Y. zz-QOQCL��z�wW�ZZ�����OZUw
QOWY0Q
Z F O CC dOW — z LLj —>
mmo0z0c��
doo�m�cnoa-
1 1 1 1 1
I I �mW�wm I uo-0
1 1 C\2 t I I
1
a
1 C I I n2 I I
¢ pac�Qwr�cSxx�
..��xa�zooac�xtn�����>t
i =i"a - Ntl'Id 1131SVW
ivu�
�ooas NIJVd -lVN0I93U AlNnO3 NIIVIIVE)
II i;
CQ
CD
It
rr - M4 CD J
4 � >
I
i
// 11L
r
— �.0 (D0
O
Y
_ a
os,
- O --OCR _0G (D
- - f
Al
79
314
y
da
•,.o�N Ta 1•,
I
11W1RANT PRROw�DLT_ HYONN4T PRROW BOLT Ht01tANf ARROW BOL HYDRANT ARROW BOLT A �� v
BENCHIWiK ELEVATION JOi 58 BENCHMARK ELEVATtt1N 4]02- E, BENCH- ELEVATNIN 4707 58 BOLT
H—T BEN IMARK REEEVATOON 4706.15 V
STORM DRAW .—
_.., aD,ET nc Oi. ND) BAXTER LANE oETE ; D �_ -_ _ T - BAXTER LANE Ea
S _ = t ly
iu `HMRAH, ARROW BOLT x z
STORM
✓ I E ¢ BENCHMARK EL 10H 4706.53 Q
ORAeI STORM 01cMN I _ Z
SHEET 4 33 WATER SHEET 3 SEWET ER SHEET 1¢ U
\STREEfJ h SHEET 6 SmBEf SHE Si EET�' ly ' SHEET 6
SHEET 19 I A" WAY SHEET 16 SHEET 3B�': +� A °WAY ✓ QI ,6i:
WA
zo
STORM ORMN STORK DIUJN I } I 1 -
P.
BHEET 12 a AT#]P SHEEL 12 i STORM DRNN „ If
,• E "SIREEf E- SHEET H - Y :¢ Fi
sHEET%T] ,BLOCK3ALLE' (� I 3 BLOCK4ALL -Y : -° o Y o
1 - E
sHEE
/ - v STREE ST 1 WA EIR 1 �I F WATER
_..jam ORNN , m SEWER SKEET 9 I SHEET J SHEt)l B �3NEEf ]
�(E �n�i
H OETENRON COND 4 I^ SHEET 5 _ - ,- ` pµgSE 4A I �1
t sH� s s ' "B "STREET
BOIINBPRT B
STREET'
- oRM oquN
�snEEils Q " -' i
STREET - STORM N - HYDRANT ARROW BOLT
0 100' 200' 300' 1 ` - 5HEE1 16' .ISHEE? 1 Jam} } BENCHMARK El£VATWN 471238
C A L E - _ - -
S SEWER IW ,.,y Ij_ '
L A-
S 1Rawx ly
T ..n �,.« 4- ,:�•- `ID —_ —" }� oes sxm av- s
LNT
QUACHEEK
EWA �I`< a i I 1 - --
�� •, - � � \ '� � � I � � — r—r —�- C— STREET
4 ^.
.cam
! eG5 ^`4i ��'!� •�
SHEET 9
LU
fn
C / ✓ !! !\ \ \ i 4 TORANT ARROW BOLT
fill- ! BENCHMARK ELEVATION 4)18.36 d
Z
(n a w
r
\ .\ Z
in 0
yQ ~
}; WATER } i i W
LLJ
m H
1
F-
. RO PARKWgti_ t Q
HYDRANI ARROW BOLT m
BENCHMARK ELEVATION 4724.89
WATER
STREET SHEET 9
SHEET 20 'I
t I
' NO. BS,6o69 -06.DWG
SHEET $ OF 25
80
315
SKZAg
August 10, 2007
Mr. Kurt Ratz
CTA Architects Engineers
Via E -Mail: kurtr @ctagroup.com
Dear Kurt:
Project 07 -2314
Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Gallatin County 911 Communications Building,
Vaquero Parkway, Bozeman, Montana
We have completed the preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Gallatin County 911
Communication Building you authorized on June 27, 2007. The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical
evaluation was to assist your firm and Gallatin County in evaluating the suitability of the proposed site for
the proposed facility. These services were performed in general accordance with our proposal to you
dated June 27, 2007.
Proposed Construction
If selected as the preferred site, the proposed Gallatin County 911 Communication Building will be
located approximately 100 feet southwest of the intersection of Vaquero Parkway and Davis Lane. The
layout of the facility and parking lot area has not been selected. However, the facility will likely consist
of one primary two -story building, and then one or more smaller support or equipment buildings. Paved
parking and driveways will also be constructed on the proposed site. The primary building will likely
utilize heavy masonry, concrete and/or steel construction, however, loads are not available at this time.
The buildings will have earth supported floor slabs placed near grade. Basements are generally not
planned at this time.
Available Information
Stahly Engineering & Associates (SEA) provided us with a site survey showing the proposed site. This
plan is dated August 7, 2007, and was used for our attached Boring Location Sketch.
Field Procedures
Six soil borings were performed on the proposed project site. The soil borings were performed on June
28 and 29, 2007, with a truck - mounted auger rig having an automatic hammer. Temporary piezometers
consisting of 1 -inch PVC pipe were installed in three of the borings to allow for extended water level
measurements.
The proposed boring locations were selected by Mr. Brett Warren, EI, an engineer with our firm, and then
staked by our drill crew. The boring elevations and locations were later surveyed by SEA, and were
BILLINGS skgeotechnical,com MISSOULA
2611 Gabel Road 4041 Whippoorwill Drive
P.O. Box 80190 P.O. Box 16123
Billings, MT 59108 -0190 Missoula, MT 59808 -6123
l—P 406.652.3930 LP 406.721.3391
F 406.652.3944 F 406.72133
316
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07 -2314 Page 2
provided to us in a table format and drawing, respectively.
Laboratory Procedures
Samples from the borings were returned to our office and visually classified and logged by a geotechnical
engineer. The soils encountered in the borings were classified in accordance with American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D 2488, "Standard Practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual — Manual Procedures)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is
attached. Representative samples will remain in our office for a period of 60 days to be available for your
examination.
Two thin - walled tube samples from the borings were selected for consolidation tests. The results of the
consolidation tests are attached to this report.
Results
Existing Site Conditions. Photographs of the site were obtained by our drill crew at the time of our field
work, but we did not perform an engineering reconnaissance of the site. The photographs indicate that a
portion of the vegetation has been removed, and the site appears to be a former agricultural field.
Observations made by the drill crew indicate the site appears to be previously undeveloped. The site
plane provided by SEA indicates the site to have a high elevation of about 4724 at the south end of the
site, and a low elevation of about 4719 at the north end, or a slope of about 1 1/2 percent down to the
northwest.
Geology. The Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30' by 60' Quadrangle, compiled by Vuke et
al, indicates the site geology consists of an alluvial braid plain deposit. This deposit is described as
including well rounded, well sorted, bouldery gravel and sand with some thin beds of clayey silt. The
soils encountered on the proposed site generally fit the description of an alluvial braid plain deposit.
Soils. The general soil profile encountered at the six borings was relatively similar. These borings
generally encountered 5 to 10 inches of topsoil and root zone underlain by low to medium plasticity lean
clay to depths ranging from 3 to 4 1/2 feet. Beneath the lean clay, the borings encountered poorly graded
gravel with sand to depths ranging from 11 to 16 feet. Clayey gravel with sand was then encountered to
the borings' termination depths of 15 1/2 and 25 1/2 feet. These strata are described in more detail below.
Lean Clay Alluvium. All borings encountered lean clay alluvium to depths ranging from 3 to 4
1/2 feet. Penetration resistances ranged from 1 to 13 blows per foot (BPF), but were generally
between 2 and 6 BPF. These results indicate the clay was generally of a soft to medium
consistency. Pocket penetrometer estimates of the unconfined compressive strengths ranged from
1 to greater than 4 tons per square foot (tsf), indicating the clay ranges from a medium to very
stiff consistency.
Gravel Alluvium. Gravel alluvium was encountered beneath the clay in all the borings to their
termination depths of 15 1/2 and 25 1/2 feet. The gravels consisted of either poorly graded gravel
with sand or clayey gravel with sand. Cobbles are also likely present within the gravel.
Penetration resistances in the gravel alluvium generally ranged from 36 to 86 BPF, indicating the
gravel alluvium is dense to very dense.
82
317
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07 -2314 Page 3
Groundwater. Groundwater levels on the proposed site is relatively shallow (4 to 6 1/2 feet).
Groundwater was observed at elevations ranging from 4714 1/2 to 4718 1/2. One -inch piezometers were
installed in Borings ST -1P, ST -4P, and ST -51? to allow for extended monitoring of groundwater levels on
the site.
Table 1. Summary of Groundwater Level Measurements
Boring
Surface Elevation
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater
Elevation
ST -11?
4720.3
5.6'
4714.7*
ST -2
4722.9
6'
4717
ST -3
4720.9
4'
4717
ST -41?
4723.6
67
4716.9*
ST -51?
4721.4
57
4715.7*
ST -6
4724.0
5 /z'
4718 1/2
*Static groundwater levels observed in piezometers on June 29, 2007.
Laboratory Tests.
Classification Tests. Classification tests consisting of Atterberg limits and percent -finer- than -a-
200 -sieve were conducted on two of the clay alluvium samples. The liquid limit of the clay
alluvium samples tested was 31, the plastic limit 20 and the plasticity index 11. The percent -
finer- than -a- 200 -sieve of these samples ranged from 86 to 93 percent. Based on these test results,
the samples classified as low plasticity lean clay. The ASTM symbol for these soils is CL.
The Atterberg limits tests indicated a low potential for volume change, i.e., shrinking and
swelling with changes in moisture content. The plastic limit was near or below the natural
moisture contents, indicating the soils tested are not likely to absorb a significant amount of
moisture if they are covered by a slab.
Consolidation Tests. The results of the consolidation tests performed on the clay alluvium
samples from Borings ST -2 and ST -4P are shown on the graphs in the Appendix. The samples
collapsed less than V2 percent when inundated under a load of 500 psf. This is a relatively low
value. Compression under a load increase of 2,000 psf was about 4 '/2 to 6 '/z percent. These are
moderate to high values indicating the clays are moderate to highly compressible.
The initial moisture content and dry density of the samples were determined as part of the test.
The initial moisture contents of the samples ranged from 26.4 to 28.4 percent, indicating they
were wet and over the soil's estimated remolded optimum moisture content. The initial dry
densities ranged from 93.5 to 93.9 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These are typical values for lean
clay alluvium.
83
318
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07 -2314 Page 4
Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations
Discussion. The proposed site along Vaquero Parkway being considered for the proposed 911 Building
site can generally be described as a moderately thick layer of rather soft to soft clay underlain by dense
gravel alluvium. The clays are generally quite weak and easily disturbed during construction activities,
and are not well suited for support of heavy buildings. However, the underlying gravels are dense to very
dense and are generally well suited for supporting both heavy and light structures on conventional frost -
depth spread footings.
For the primary building, we recommend totally removing all of the clays from beneath the proposed
building area, and replacing it with compacted structural gravel backfill. The new building could then be
supported on conventional spread footing foundations and earth supported floor slabs. For the lighter
support and equipment buildings, it may be possible to support the foundations and floor slabs on
undisturbed clay, or compacted backfill placed over the undisturbed soils, provided the foundation loads
are relatively low. Although some of the borings indicate some of the clays are likely too soft even for
lightly loaded foundations, and it may be necessary to subexcavate the clays from beneath foundations
depending on the actual building location.
Bearing capacities in the alluvial clay can be expected to range from 1,000 psf to 1,500 psf, while bearing
capacities in the alluvial gravel can be expected to range from 4,000 to 5,000 psf, or possibly higher, if
necessary.
The on -site clays are highly susceptible to disturbance during construction activities, and special
considerations will be needed in preparing subgrades in parking and driveway areas. These
considerations typically consist of measures such as haul roads, stabilization with geotextiles, thicker
pavement sections and/or subexcavation and stabilization of soft areas.
Groundwater was also encountered at fairly shallow depths on the proposed site. It is common for
groundwater levels in the Bozeman area to rise several feet due to spring thaw and irrigation, and
groundwater levels during construction may be higher than the levels we measured during drilling. The
presence of high groundwater could complicate the excavations performed on the proposed site, and
considerable dewatering could be required, particularly for deeper excavations. Due to the high
groundwater, basements should be avoided, if possible, but if basements are planned, permanent
perimeter and subfloor drainage systems will be necessary to permanently lower the groundwater level
and control seepage. More detailed recommendations are discussed below.
Site Preparation. We recommend all vegetation, topsoil, and root zone be removed from beneath the
proposed footings, slabs, and pavement. The thickness of topsoil and root zone at the borings was 6 to 10
inches. Actual depth of removal across the site should be determined by observations during stripping.
It is our opinion conventional spread footings and earth support floor slabs can be utilized for the
structures planned on the proposed site. For the primary structure, which will have heaver foundation
loadings, we recommend removing all of the clay from beneath foundations and replacing it with
compacted sandy gravel. To provide more uniform floor slab and interior foundation support, we also
recommend removing all of the clays from beneath the floor slab areas.
We recommend footings bear on undisturbed alluvial gravel or compacted backfill placed over
undisturbed alluvial gravel. We recommend all existing clay be subexcavated from beneath the proposed
84
319
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07 -2314 Page 5
footings and floor slabs and oversize zones extending 1 foot (horizontal) beyond the footings for every
foot of subexcavation below the footings, i.e. 1:1 oversizing.
In pavement areas, it will be necessary to strip the topsoil, and the exposed subgrade should be scarified
and recompacted before placing any structural fill or pavement base or subbase. Extreme care will need
to be taken to avoid excessively disturbing the clay subgrade during construction. We also recommend
constructing haul roads during construction to keep rubber tired equipment off of the clay subgrade.
Additional measures such as stabilization with geotextiles and /or subexcavation and backfilling with
gravels may be needed in soft areas that are identified or develop during construction.
Dewatering. Groundwater measurements taken while drilling indicate groundwater is fairly close to the
clay and gravel interface. With the seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels, it is likely groundwater
levels during construction could be significantly higher than the levels measured during drilling.
Therefore, groundwater could be encountered during the building excavation. If groundwater is
encountered above the gravel surface, the groundwater can likely be displaced as the gravel backfill is
advanced across the excavation. Fairly significant dewatering will be required during the excavation of
deeper utilities. Basements for the proposed buildings should be avoided, if possible, but if planned will
require permanent perimeter and subfloor drainage systems to control seepage and permanently lower the
groundwater level.
Spread Footing Foundations. For conventional frost depth spread footings placed on undisturbed
alluvial gravel or compacted backfill placed over undisturbed alluvial gravel, preliminary settlement
calculations indicate bearing capacities of 4,000 to 5,000 psf will result in settlements of less than 1 inch
for column loads up to 500 kips. For the smaller support and equipment buildings, spread footing
foundations bearing directly on the the medium to rather stiff clays, spread footings can be designed for
bearing pressures of about 1,000 to 1,500 psf for column loads up to 50 kips and wall loads up to 3 kips
per lineal foot. Settlement should be less than 1 inch. The soft to very soft clays will not be suitable for
direct foundation support, and it will be necessary to subexcavate the clays down to the gravels for these
structures. The above bearing capacity and settlement values should be considered estimates, and further
analysis will be required once specific footing elevations, site grades and building loads are determined.
Seismic Considerations. Based on the results of our soil borings and review of available geologic
information, we recommend using a "Stiff soil profile, Site Class D," as defined by the 2006 International
Building Code (IBC) for design. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) wesbsite indicates the
project location to have a maximum 1.0 second spectral response acceleration, S1, of 23 percent of gravity
and a maximum 0.2 second spectral response acceleration, Ss, of 75 percent of gravity.
Pavement Areas. After stripping the topsoil and root zone, we recommend the upper 6 inches of the
resulting subgrade be scarified, moistened to a moisture content near optimum, and compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Method of
Test D 698 (standard Proctor). Pavement sections consisting of approximately 3 inches of asphalt
concrete underlain by 12 inches of compacted base course would be sufficient in automobile areas, while
3 inches of asphalt pavement underlain by 18 inches of compacted base course would likely be sufficient
in truck areas. These pavement sections are preliminary, and should the site be developed in the future,
further analysis will be required.
Additional Geotechnical Analysis. Should the proposed 911 Building be constructed on the site, further
geotechnical analysis will be required. A site map showing the location of the proposed building along
85
320
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07 -2314 Page 6
with anticipated loading will be required. Additional shallow borings are recommended at specific
structure locations, and additional geotechnical engineering analysis will be required to determine
foundation and pavement recommendations. If basements are planned, piezometers should also be
installed in the building specific borings to assist in the design of the subfloor drainage systems and to
assist in establishing basement floor elevations.
General Recommendations
The preliminary analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Additional geotechnical
evaluation will be needed for the project. Often, variations occur between these borings, the nature and
extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted.
Services performed by SK Geotechnical Corporation personnel for this project have been conducted with
that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this
area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Thank you for using SK Geotechnical. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call Brett
Warren or Cory Rice at (406) 652 -3930.
Sincerely,
Cory G. Rice, PE
Senior Engineer
bmw /cgr:khr
Attachments:
Site Location Sketch
Boring Location Sketch
Geologic Sketch
Descriptive Terminology
Log of Boring Sheets ST -1 through ST -6
Consolidation/Swell Tests (2)
86
321
Brett M. Warren, EI
Engineer
Cory G. Rice, PE
Senior Engineer
bmw /cgr:khr
Attachments:
Site Location Sketch
Boring Location Sketch
Geologic Sketch
Descriptive Terminology
Log of Boring Sheets ST -1 through ST -6
Consolidation/Swell Tests (2)
86
321
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
ra f
C
;.S_
fift- W •
NEVA
if
STREAMLINE DAYTIME SERVICE ROUTE
w T�► �:o�uusvN R r.� E N - CIS
ON M"�i�TNC, ASSOCIATES Q i�� t eCtur'_
,,ff
A / A.E piny -0.-d Cwnp -y
m M YY
322
: YELLOWLINE •
FOUR CORNERS & BELGRADE
E BAXTER LN
MADISON AVE.
OG Npq w a
BELGRADE CFyO ¢ z
U U n
m Z TSCHACHE
FRSTATF90
OAK ST
ct'a
QUALITY INN RENOVA
rc
(IN BACK LOT) >
FRANK RD
z z x
°m o a
> ANNIE 0 g
rc
SHEDyO u Y
a FOUR
CORNERS
DURSTON RD
M A
ARROWHEAD TOOLE
a
z
A a r CASCADE
O w
0
0
z
o ¢
Q A O r BABCOCK
0
EVALLEY Q O O RAVALLI THE RIDGE LL
LAREDO OR r FALLON ST O A
VALLEY COMMONS OR `
00 �¢
o
z KOONTZ TRAILER PARK h
z
K Fa
O a
V x
I
Q
H
ui
HASTINGS BOZEMAN
a
m
CENTER HIGH SCHOOL
z
PIZZA
j
I NTFRSTgT'90
BABCOCK
¢
BRIDGER PEAKS
WAL -MART
TOWN CENTER
(NORTH)
DAY'S INN w
STORYST
w
a
LAW &JUSTICE
N
CENTER a
r
a a
ASPEN MEADOWS
a
r
>a
TECH PARK x
x
HEMLOCK ST
y
°o x
FAIRGROUNDS 0
0
0
z
m
X A
z
A
I
Q
H
DURSTON RD
>
a
x
HASTINGS BOZEMAN
a
m
CENTER HIGH SCHOOL
PIZZA
j
HUT
BABCOCK
¢
x
0
CURTISS ST
KOCH ST i
STORYST
w
a
LAW &JUSTICE
N
CENTER a
r
a a
x
N
� m
>a
TECH PARK x
'a MSU
N CAMPUS
o
m
7 GARFIELD
MSU S
UN
r MSU
HEDGES
S
COMPLEX rA
y
a
a
323
'a
x
PEACH ST.
w
a �
0
z m
VILLARD ST
BEALL ST
LAMMESTi
KAGY BLVD
MUSEUM OF
THE ROCKIES
GALLATIN CENTER
/ (STAPLES LOT)
CITY
BREW
N" RAWHIDE RIDGE RD
POST TOWN
OFFICE PUMP
BAXTER LN VA
BUS DEPOT
RMSC
MENTAL
HEALTH
CAMPUS
From: Lee Hazelbaker
To: Scott Hedalin
Subject: Swimming Complex
Date: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:12:01 PM
I hope this reaches you. We met yesterday as an Operations Committee and would
like to stay in touch with you as the project moves forward. We would like to be as
accommodating as possible but if there is a spot already on our route that would be
ideal. We are pretty locked in for the next two years with the schedule as it is
because of financial issues.
Let's stay in touch and see what works out.
Lee
ss
324
--own ,...
i .tom �r '.t,�t�,r•
(S _
fift- W •
NEVA
if
SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT CORRESPONDENCE
w T■ MI MO�Sv �, - 118
R r� E N arc a�ectur
.0 Ml ME,INC. ASSOCIATES
��,,ff RAJ A.efmpf ,,'rz;(F.r:':C;nnof -,
m M YY
325
From:
Shockley, Sue
To:
scott(o)arch118.com
Subject:
Fairgrounds
Date:
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:08:59 PM
Scott, I'm glad you phoned this morning regarding the possible City
development to the east of the Fairgrounds, on the MDT property. The Fair
Board is very open to discussions regarding the shared use of parking space if a
City facility is actually developed on the that property. I have visited, briefly
with City Manager Chris Kukuski about that possibility. If you have further
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sue/
Sue Shockley, Manager
Gallatin County Fairgrounds Events Park
901 North Black Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
406 - 582 -3270
"life is too short for drama, laugh insanely, love truly and forgive quickly"
89
326
From: Fellowship Baptist Church
To: scott(naarch118.com
Subject: Re: Property at Oak & 27th, Bozeman
Date: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:12:36 PM
H i Scott,
We have said numerous times to City officials that we would gladly do what we
could to benefit our community, including any shared parking situations that may be
advantageous on the site. Of course, we would like to know details before formally
agreeing to anything, and half of the property is for sale right now, the sale of which
may affect our ability to help with parking, but in general we would be happy to help
any way we can.
Very sorry about the number, we are in the process of switching carriers. Until then,
you can reach me at the number below.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve Van Winkle
Pastor, Fellowship Baptist Church
Bozeman. MT.
579 -0139
On Nov 4, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Fellowship Baptist Church <info(Wbc- mt.org> wrote:
Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4G LTE
-- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
Subject: Property at Oak & 27th, Bozeman
From: Scott Hedglin <scott(alarch118.com>
To: info(a)fbc- mt.org
CC: Property at Oak & 27th, Bozeman
Greetings -
I am a local architect who is working with the City of Bozeman to
determine
the location of a possible new indoor /outdoor swimming facility. Rose
Park
(immediately east of your property) is one of the sites being considered.
The nature of my contact is to ask about the possibility of shared parking
90
327
if it is determined that Rose Park would best serve the City. In general,
we intend to provide adequate parking on the Rose Park site, but if
"overflow" parking becomes necessary, on occasion (such as swim meets,
etc),
would Fellowship Baptist be willing to enter into an agreement with the
City? Shared costs, time of need /availability, and various other concerns
will need to be addressed. However, at this time, we are only inquiring
as
to whether or not you would be open to such an arrangement.
I apologize for the email, but the telephone number listed in the phone
book
and online is disconnected.
Thanks for your time addressing this message. I look forward to hearing
from you.
Scott Hedglin I AIA, NCARB, LEEDAP I architecture118 1 406 - 599 -7549
PO Box
6723, Bozeman, MT 59771
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e -mail message and all attachments, if any, may contain confidential and privileged material and are
intended only for the person or entity to which the message is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this information is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately by reply e -mail, and destroy all copies of the original
message.
91
328
Luke Jackson
From: Jimmy Talarico <jimt @ctagroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:05 PM
To: Luke Jackson
Cc: Andrea Stevenson; Kurt Ratz
Subject: YMCA parking
Luke,
This email is to summarize our conversation on the phone regarding parking at the YMCA site. As I mentioned, the
county will be redrawing the boundaries for the Y's leased area. They were open to redrawing based on the Y's parking
needs. And they were open to the idea of a shared parking agreement. We didn't talk specific numbers as to how many
spaces would be dedicated only to the Y versus shared with the county, but the general understanding is that both
parties are open to finding the best parking solutions at this location.
Hope that helps and let me know if you need any further clarification.
Thanks,
Jimmy
Jimmy Talarico
Architecture /Business Development
o 406.922.7125
CL:MI [ M Ip9F�
1
329
92
YMCA - City of Bozeman Partnership
Memorandum of Understanding — DRAFT
September 27, 2013
Purpose /Vision Statement:
The City and YMCA have mutual interests in providing recreation opportunities and desire to ensure that
people of all ages and economic levels are provided with the opportunity to enjoy a broad range of
health and wellness services provided by a well - planned aquatics and recreational facility. We recognize
that by working together we can more efficiently and effectively serve our community. We each bring
strengths to the table that can assist our partner in meeting their goals, and we recognize that each
other has unique organizational needs that must meet through any cooperative agreement. A fully
integrated partnership will result in combined service delivery that exceeds the services each could
provide individually.
Findings
• The City is charged with the responsibility of providing public facilities for the purpose of leisure
time, recreation activities and health enrichment for the general public wellness of its citizens.
• The City is currently planning for the construction of a new family aquatics center for the City.
• The YMCA is a not - for - profit organization dedicated to building self- esteem and enriching body,
mind and spirit for persons of all ages and economic levels and addresses community needs
through wellness, leadership and family strengthening activities.
• The YMCA is currently engaged in a capital campaign to construct a $10.5 million dollar multi-
purpose recreation center to meet the needs of YMCA members.
• Both planned facilities are likely to include common components that could be shared (locker
rooms, activity and community gathering rooms, entry and lobby areas, mechanical systems).
Operating Concepts
The elements of a cooperative agreement for the construction and operation of an integrated recreation
and aquatics center (hereafter referred to as "Facility ") can be described through the following four
divisions; Land /Infrastructure, Building, Operations, and Agreements
LAND /INFRASTRUCTURE
• The Gallatin Valley YMCA will lease or sell a portion of its 7 acres of land to the City to construct
the Facility
• The City will own or lease the property on which its building sits and will be a member of a
condominium association that jointly owns and operates the common joint -use areas.
• The YMCA will have sole ownership of the property under its building and will be a member of a
condominium association that jointly owns and operates the common joint -use areas.
• In exchange for leasing the land from the YMCA for $1, the City of Bozeman will join the YMCA
in the planning, design and construction of the Facility. Additionally, the City and YMCA will
jointly fund the infrastructure needed to construct the facility. This may include but not be
limited to; Vaquero Parkway and required sidewalks, water and sewer extensions and service
connections, parking lots, and landscaping
BUILDING
• Both parties find benefit in the design, construction and operation of a joint -use and fully
integrated facility
330
• The Facility will be designed so that it can be constructed and operated by either party should
the other party's circumstances delay their participation.
• Each party will be responsible for the construction cost of their portion of the Facility. The City
and YMCA will share equally in the construction costs of all joint use areas including site
improvements.
OPERATIONS
• The City will own and operate the aquatics portion of the Facility and the YMCA will own and
operated the multi - purpose recreation areas of the Facility. The common areas and joint spaces
will be owned, operated and maintained by both parties through a condominium association.
AGREEMENTS
• The Gallatin Valley YMCA and the City of Bozeman shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding that clearly defines the framework of a partnership to include
o Design costs and responsibilities as they relate to architect work, construction
manager, construction documents and timelines, bidding and award
• A payback agreement will outline the terms and conditions of reimbursement for costs incurred
by one party should the other party be unable to proceed at the agreed upon schedule
• The formation of a condominium association to manage, maintain, operate and insure the
common and shared -use areas
• Operating agreement
• The City and YMCA may find it beneficial to share personnel and duties such as
staffing the front desk
• Hours of operation and time block scheduling
• Membership costs and daily use fee structures
• Utility costs for common shared -use areas
331
City of Bozeman
ReCRe ation/aquatiC s faCility
fe asiBility study
deCemBeR 10, 2012
74
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 Project Summary
SECTION 2 Project Participants
SECTION 3 Project Process
SECTION 4 Market Analysis
SECTION 5 Community Input
SECTION 6 Operations Assessment
SECTION 7 Project Options, Programming & Budgets
75
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 1
SECTION 1: PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Summary
In late 2011, The City Commission and Recreaon Staff idenfied a high priority need to conduct a feasibility
studyexamining the exisng demand, use and adequacy of current city aquac and recreaon facilies to meet cur-
rent and future community needs. The condion and use of two exisng city aquac facilies were primary driving
forces behind the effort: The Bogert Pool and the Bozeman Swim Center. The Bogert Pool, a much loved and used
community amenity located in a neighborhood park, is nearing the end of its useful life unless major renovaons are
performed. The Swim Center, the regions only 50 meter compeve swimming venue is beginning to show signs of
its success through physical wear and tear and difficulty supporng compeve events. A goal of the feasibility
study is determine if either of these facilies currently meets the needs of the community, and if not, can they be
renovated or augmented with new addional facilies?
In the spring of 2012, the City of Bozeman hired Comma Q Architecture, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS),
Ballard*King and Associates and Water Technology, Inc. to invesgate the following scope of work:
· Solicit community and stakeholder input in at least two public meengs
· Prepare demographic and market analysis of similar, nearby, exisng facilies
· Determine program components, if applicable, based upon the community input process
· Assess alternave sites
· Develop conceptual project budgets
· Test fit community selected program elements on associated sites
· Document findings in a report
BRS commenced work in April 2012 and parcipated in two workshops, each including a public meeng. The public
meengs were augmented by a public survey conducted Leisure Vision, Inc. to benchmark community use and needs
of community recreaon facilies. Ballard*King, a firm specializing in recreaon facility planning and operaons
consulng, visited area facilies and prepared data market analysis of the area. The design consulng team conduct-
ed an exercise with the public to develop consensus about potenal project program elements and budget. BRS then
refined the building program—a list of spaces and corresponding areas—along with project costs and developed
sketch plans that could be test fit on real or theorecal sites.
As a result, the feasibility analysis idenfied 4 potenal projects that could be developed to meet the aquac and
recreaonal capacity needs of the community. Of these projects, 2 projects, the re-building of the Bogert Pool
(Opon 1 and 1A) and the renovaon of the Swim Center (Opon 2 and 2A) should be considered as efforts to main-
tain current aquacs capacity in the community. Based upon market needs analysis, increased aquacs and recrea-
onal community capacity needs could be met through the development of a new community recreaon center and
a new outdoor aquacs park (Opons 3, 3A and 4).
76
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 2
Bogert Pool:
The exisng pool is a cherished cultural icon that has served the community since the 1930s. From an operaons and mainte-
nance perspecve, the pool has exceeded its useful life. The design consulng team recommends demolishing the exisng
pool and redeveloping the site with a new pool and aquac features to improve:
· Operaonal efficiencies
· Provide a variety of new aquac features that meet the needs of a greater age demographic
· Improve Safety
· Improve ADA access
· Improve integraon of the pool facility to the park to be@er support park use and events.
Given the constraints of a limited project work area in an exisng park that is fully programmed, the new facility located in this
park would improve the experienal quality of using the pool, but will add li@le new aquac capacity relave to the overall
demand and need. This project should be considered as an effort to maintain exisng community recreaonal infrastructure
and capacity.
The Swim Center:
A full renovaon of the Swim Center that includes the following modificaons to the building to improve operaonal efficien-
cies and funcon to improve the marketability of the facility as a compeve swim venue.
· Renovate locker and building entry areas to improve operaonal efficiencies.
· Add storage capacity to the building to clear deck space for compeve event spectator viewing.
· Expand the building by ten (10) feet in length so that will allow for modificaon of the pool shell to accom-
modate a moveable bulkhead system so that the 50 meter lap lanes can be adapted to meet 25 yard and 25
meter short course formats.
Like the Bogert Pool, the renovaon and enhancements to the Swim Center maintain current aquac capacity while increasing
funconality and end user experience.
Increasing Community Aquacs and Recreaonal Capacity:
The design team also explored opons based upon community input to increase aquac and recreaon opportunies and ca-
pacity beyond the restoraon of capacity of rebuilding Bogert Pool and remodeling the Swim Center. Capacity to meet current
and future community needs could be obtain by building a new community recreaon center and new outdoor aquacs park.
Please reference the Secon 5: Market Analysis, Community Input and Operaon Assessment; and Secon 6: Project Opons,
Programming & Budgets for full detail.
77
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 3
SECTION 2: PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Members of City Council
Mayor: Sean Becker,
Deputy Mayor: Jeff Krauss
Commissioner: Carson Taylor
Commissioner: Chris Mehl
Commissioner: Cynthia Andrus
City of Bozeman Staff
City Manager: Chris Kukulski,
Assistant City Manager: Chuck Winn,
Director of Economic Development: Brit Fontenot,
Director of Parks and Recreaon (Rered): Ron Dingman,
Director of Parks and Recreaon (Current): Mitch Overton,
Recreaon Aquac Director: Dan McCarthy
Project Manager: Jamie Sai@a,
Design Consulng Team
Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture: Craig Bouck and Frank Buono
Comma Q Architecture, Incorpoarted Ben Lloyd and Tripp Lewton
Ballard*King & Associates: Ken Ballard and Darin Barr
Water Technology, Incorporated: Douglass Whiteaker
Leisure Vision, Incorporated: Ron Vine,
78
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 4
SECTION 3: PROJECT PROCESS
BRS engaged Bozeman residents in a series of (2) two-day workshops. Workshops were held April and October of
2012. At each workshop, the team facilitated a public meeng .
Workshop #1– April 3-4 2012
The design team meet with community stakeholders and potenal project partners to gauge interests and con-
cerns regarding the feasibility study. The results of these meengs maybe reviewed in the Market Analysis, Oper-
aonal Assessment and Community Input poron of this report.
The design team then parcipated in a public meeng, presenng slides describing naonal trends in community
and aquac centers, which provided those present with a common understanding of the spaces, funcons and
features of a aquac and recreaon facilies. A poron of the public meeng was dedicated to a discussion of
aquacs programming that included informaon regarding the new programming potenal for aquacs that pro-
mote socializaon and “water-tainment” value for communies.
Next, individuals a@ending the public meeng were divided into groups and provided a deck of program cards.
Each deck contained over 100 cards describing a variety of community, athlec and aquac elements/spaces.
Each card included a space descripon, square footage capital cost and an esmate of operaonal expense and
revenue potenal. Each table/team established a budget for the project based on the revenue informaon pro-
vided and then selected and priorized the program cards to meet the budget and cost recovery objecves. At
the conclusion of the exercise, the proposed facility concepts varied in size from 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) to
over 100,000 GSF, and from $14M to $30M building construcon cost.
Workshop #2 – October 23-24 2012
Based upon the input from the first public meeng and the results of the community aquacs and recreaon sur-
vey administered by Leisure Vision, Inc., the design team presented 3 project opons with various variaons op-
ons in the second public meeng. The 3 opons included:
1. New Bogert Pool Facility with spray ground opons
2. Remodeled Swim Center Facility
3. A new stand alone Community Recreaon Center with indoor family leisure aquac programming
For details regard these opons, please reference Secon 6: Project Opons, Programming and Budget of this
report. In the immediate discussion following the presentaon of the opons to the community, concern was
expressed that majority of the work on the Bogert Pool and the Swim Center concentrated too heavily on main-
taining exisng aquacs capacity without adding enough new aquacs capacity to address current and future
needs. The design team addresses this community concern by adding a fourth opon of a stand alone outdoor
family aquacs center in this report.
79
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 5
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
80
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 6
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
81
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 7
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
82
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 8
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
83
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 9
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
84
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 10
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
85
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 11
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
86
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 12
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
87
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 13
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
88
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 14
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
89
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 15
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
90
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 16
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
91
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 17
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
92
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 18
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
93
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 19
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
94
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 20
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
95
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 21
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
96
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 22
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
97
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 23
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
98
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 24
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
99
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 25
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
100
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 26
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
101
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 27
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
102
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 28
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
103
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 29
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
104
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 30
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
105
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 31
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
106
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 32
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
107
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 33
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
108
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 34
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
109
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 35
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
110
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 36
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
111
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 37
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
112
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 38
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
113
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 39
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
114
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 40
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
115
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 41
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
116
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 42
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
117
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 43
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
118
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 44
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
119
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 45
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
120
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 46
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
121
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 47
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
122
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 48
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
123
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 49
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
124
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 50
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
125
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 51
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
126
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 52
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
127
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 53
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
128
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 54
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
129
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 55
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
130
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 56
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
131
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 57
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
132
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 58
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
133
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 59
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
134
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 60
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
135
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 61
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
136
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 62
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
137
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 63
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
138
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 64
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
139
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 65
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
140
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 66
SECTION 4: MARKET ANALYSIS
141
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 67
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
142
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 68
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
143
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 69
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
144
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 70
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
145
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 71
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
146
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 72
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
147
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 73
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
148
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 74
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
149
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 75
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
150
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 76
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
151
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 77
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
152
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 78
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
153
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 79
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
154
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 80
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
155
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 81
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
156
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 82
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY INPUT
157
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 83
SECTION 6: OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT
158
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 84
SECTION 6: OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT
159
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 85
SECTION 6: OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT
160
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 86
SECTION 6: OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT
161
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 87
SECTION 6: OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT
162
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 88
SECTION 6: OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT
163
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 89
SECTION 7:
PROJECT OPTIONS, PROGRAMMING & BUDGETS
164
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 90
OPTION 1 - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
Opon 1: Bogert Pool Replacement - 5,000 SF Pool + 3,000 SF Sprayground
S.
C
h
u
r
c
h
A
v
e
Bogert Park
Gate House and
Concessions
Locker Rooms and
Pool Mechanical
3,000 SF
Sprayground
5,000 SF Family
Leisure Pool
New at Grade Connecon
to Bogert Park
165
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 91
OPTION 1 - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
166
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 92
OPTION 1 - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
167
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 93
OPTION 1 - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
168
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 94
Opon 1A: Bogert Pool Replacement - 7,000 SF Pool
OPTION 1A - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
S.
C
h
u
r
c
h
A
v
e
Bogert Park
Gate House and
Concessions
Locker Rooms and
Pool Mechanical
7,000 SF Family
Leisure Pool
New at Grade Connecon
to Bogert Park
169
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 95
OPTION 1A - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
Bogert Park
170
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 96
OPTION 1A - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
Bogert Park
171
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 97
OPTION 1A - BOGERT POOL REPLACEMENT
Bogert Park
172
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 98
OPTION 2 - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
Opon 2: Swim Center Renovaon - Building Updates + Pool Extension
Bozeman
High School
New Mul-purpose
Removable Spectator
Bleachers
Building and 50 Meter
Pool extended 10 feet to
accommodate two (2)
movable bulkheads
New Entry, Lounge, Control
Desk, Staff Office and
New General and
Bleacher Storage
New Meet
Management Room/
Moveable bulkheads
shown posioned for 25
yard lap configuraon
Renovated Life Guard
Room
173
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 99
OPTION 2 - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
174
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 100
OPTION 2 - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
175
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 101
OPTION 2 - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
176
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 102
OPTION 2A - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
Opon 2A: Swim Center Renovaon - Building Updates with No Change to the Pool
Bozeman
High School
New Mul-purpose
Removable Spectator
Bleachers
Building and 50 Meter
Pool extended 10 feet to
accommodate two (2)
movable bulkheads
New Entry, Lounge, Control
Desk, Staff Office and
New General and
Bleacher Storage
New Meet
Management Room/
Moveable bulkheads
shown posioned for 25
yard lap configuraon
Renovated Life Guard
Room
177
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 103
OPTION 2A - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
Opon 2A: Swim Center Renovaon - Building Updates with No Change to the Pool
178
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 104
OPTION 2A - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
Opon 2A: Swim Center Renovaon - Building Updates with No Change to the Pool
179
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 105
OPTION 2A - SWIM CENTER RENOVATION
Opon 2A: Swim Center Renovaon - Building Updates with No Change to the Pool
180
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 106
OPTION 3 & 3A - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
Opon 3 : A New Stand Alone Community Recreaon Center
Opon 3A : A New Stand Alone Community Recreaon Center + Outdoor Family Aquacs
Upper Level Conceptual Space Plan
Lower Level Conceptual Space Plan
Opon 3A to include Outdoor Family
Aquacs adjacent to the Leisure Pool
181
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 107
OPTION 3 - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
182
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 108
OPTION 3 - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
183
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 109
OPTION 3 - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
184
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 110
OPTION 3 - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
185
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 111
OPTION 3 - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
186
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 112
OPTION 3A - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
187
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 113
OPTION 3A - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
188
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 114
OPTION 3A - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
189
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 115
OPTION 3A - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
190
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 116
OPTION 3A - BOZEMAN RECREATION CENTER
191
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 117
OPTION 4 - NEW OUTDOOR FAMILY AQUATICS PARK
Opon 4 : A New Stand Alone Outdoor Family Aquacs Park
(4 to 5 acre site Locaon to be determined)
4 to 5 Acre Site Locaon To be Determined
Main Entry
Gate House and
Concessions
Two (2) Mul-Use Pools.
Total: 10,000 SF
Locker Rooms and
Pool Mechanical
Parking for 250 Cars
D r o p O ff
192
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 118
OPTION 4 - NEW OUTDOOR FAMILY AQUATICS PARK
193
City of Bozeman Recreation / Aquatics Facility Feasibility Study / 12.27.2012 | Page 119
OPTION 4 - NEW OUTDOOR FAMILY AQUATICS PARK
194
3457 Ringsby Court, unit 200 | denver, Co 80216 | 303-455-1366 | brs@brsarch.com | www.brsarch.com
195