HomeMy WebLinkAbout002_Civil Site Document
THE RIDGE LOT 6
HW#1086.016
Civil Section Prepared By:
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406-570-3676
www.headwatersmt.net
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
NOVEMBER, 2021
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 1
Table of Contents
Lot 6
Site Plan
Tab 1 Cover Letter
Tab 2 CIL Water Rights, Traffic Information, PUD Parking Plan, Water & Sewer Calculations,
Tab 3 Civil Sheets
Tab 4 CIL Parkland
Tab 5 Soil Data
Tab 6 Existing Plat
Tab 7 Stormwater Memo, Existing Stormwater Design Reports (3)
Tab 8 Construction Management Plan
Tab 9 HOA Approval of Sidewalk Encroachment
H:\1086\016\DOCS\Site Plan\0_TOC_Lot 6.doc
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 10
Tab 1
Cover Letter
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 2
November 10, 2021
City of Bozeman Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59771
Re: The Ridge Lot 6
Site Plan Submittal
TBD Ravalli St.
Dear Planner,
Please find attached the civil section of the Site Plan Submittal for Lot 6, as shown on the Amended Plat of
The Ridge Athletic Club Subdivision (J‐465). The proposed project consists of one mixed‐use building,
occupied by two commercial businesses on the ground level, and 6 dwelling units upstairs. The parking lot
pavement has already been constructed with the PUD. This letter summarizes the civil section of the Site
Plan Submittal
Planning
1. The project will be completed in one phase.
2. The total commercial floor space (all on the ground level) of the building is 7,560 square feet, which
is split between multiple units. The total residential floor space (all on the second level) of the
building is 7,560 square feet, which is split between 6 dwelling units.
3. The site is zoned R‐O, and the max building height is 50 feet, with a roof pitch less than 3:12.
4. The parking calculations and Parking Site Plan submitted with the PUD show 41 parking stalls for Lot
6, including 2 ADA spaces. There are 26 parking spaces required to serve the commercial businesses,
and another 12 parking spaces required to serve the residential units. The available parking is
sufficient to meet the parking demands.
5. Digital copies of the current plat are attached in Tab 6.
Engineering
1. The existing regional retention storm ponds are proposed to be utilized. The retention ponds meet
the requirement to retain the 10‐year, 2‐hour storm. The Stormwater Design Report submitted for
the PUD in 2007, by C&H Engineers, is included in Tab 7. Also included is a Storm Water Memo and
accompanying calculations for the proposed building.
2. Snow Storage was considered with the PUD. Snow storage areas are shown west of the proposed
building as shown on the civil drawings.
3. A construction management plan is included in Tab 8.
Water Rights
1. Calculations for the cash in lieu of water rights were sent to Griffin Nielsen. The calculations are
included in Tab 2.
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 2 of 2
Water & Wastewater
1. The certified peak hour sewer as well as average and max day domestic water usage is included in
Tab 2.
2. No fire service lines are proposed. If fire service lines are discovered to be necessary as part of
review by the fire department, plans will be completed by a Professional Engineer.
3. No water wells are proposed with this project.
Transportation
1. The drive access was approved and constructed with the PUD.
2. Using the ITE Trip Generation calculator, an estimated 11.01 trips per day per 1,000 sf of commercial
building space and 5.81 trips per day per residential dwelling unit will be generated. Traffic
calculations are included in Tab 2.
3. A traffic impact study waiver request was approved by the City of Bozeman. That approval is
included in Tab 2.
Utility Plan
1. Existing PUE is shown and noted. Existing and proposed electric, gas, communications, water, sewer
and storm are shown on sheet C‐2.
Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Existing contours are shown at 0.5’ intervals on sheet C‐3.
2. The regional storm ponds are the only drainageway in the area. Flow directions are shown using
arrows.
Site Plan
1. Existing infrastructure, setbacks, sidewalks, and existing conditions are shown on sheet C‐1.
Lighting Plan and Details
1. The parking lot lighting plan was approved with the PUD.
2. A photometric plan for the exterior building lights is included with the plan set.
Parkland Requirements
1. Cash‐in‐lieu of parkland is proposed. Calculations have been submitted to Addi Jadin, City of
Bozeman Planning and Development Manager. Email correspondence with Mrs. Jadin is included in
Tab 4.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 406‐570‐3676.
Sincerely,
_____
Garrett Schultz, P.E.
Headwaters Engineering, Inc.
H:\1086\016\DOCS\Site Plan\1‐1_cover letter_Lot 6.doc
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 2
CIL Water Rights, Traffic Information, PUD Parking Plan, Water & Sewer Calcs
Cash In‐Lieu of Water Rights Calculations
The Ridge Lot 6
11/1/2021
Residential
Number of Units 6 Multi‐household units
Demand 0.124 AF/yr/MH Unit (per Admin. Order 2013‐07)
Total Yearly Demand 0.744 AF
Cash In‐Lieu $6,000 $/AF
Residential Cash In Lieu of Water Rights $4,464
Commercial
Number of Units 2 Commercial Units
Area 7560 sf
Unit Water Demand 10,000 gal/yr/1,000 sf
Unit Water Demand 0.030688873 AF/yr/1,000 sf
Unit Water Demand 0.000031 AF/yr/sf
Total Yearly Demand 0.232007881 AF
Cash In‐Lieu $6,000 $/AF
Commercial Cash In Lieu of Water Rights $1,392
Irrigation
Irrigation Use from Landscape Plan 2,700 *gallons per week *estimated
18 weeks of Irrigation 48,600.00 gallons per year
Yearly Irrigation Water 0.149147923 acre‐feet per year
Cash In‐Lieu $6,000 $/AF
Irrigation Cash In Lieu of Water Rights $895
Total Cash In‐Lieu of Water Rights $6,751
r
-
^
2
'
S
:
&
.
n
^
^
^
^
0
<
?
•
s
:
c
>
s
-
:
<
*
«
.
v
<
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
2
0
E
.
O
L
I
V
E
•
P
.
O
.
B
O
X
1
2
3
0
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
,
M
O
N
T
A
N
A
5
9
7
7
1
-
1
2
3
0
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
P
H
O
N
E
:
(
4
0
6
)
5
8
2
-
2
2
8
0
•
F
A
X
:
(
4
0
6
)
5
8
2
-
2
2
6
3
D
a
t
e
:
M
a
r
c
h
1
5
,
2
0
0
7
C
A
S
H
I
N
L
I
E
U
O
F
W
A
T
E
R
R
I
G
H
T
S
F
o
r
a
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
N
a
m
e
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
A
r
e
a
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
:
T
h
e
R
i
d
g
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
e
v
e
R
o
d
e
r
i
c
k
,
R
i
d
g
e
L
L
C
1
5
1
M
c
G
e
e
D
r
i
v
e
B
o
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
o
n
t
a
n
a
5
9
7
1
5
1
.
3
5
a
c
r
e
s
B
-
P
0
W
a
t
e
r
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
(
s
o
m
e
F
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
u
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
o
l
l
a
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
)
5
8
,
8
0
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
X
2
2
.
5
7
g
a
l
/
s
q
.
f
t
.
=
1
,
3
2
7
,
2
5
1
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
u
s
e
4
.
0
7
3
a
c
r
e
-
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
C
a
s
h
-
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
a
m
o
u
n
t
4
.
0
7
3
a
c
-
f
t
X
$
3
0
.
5
5
p
e
r
a
c
-
f
t
X
1
1
.
7
6
6
8
T
O
T
A
L
C
A
S
H
-
I
N
-
L
I
E
U
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
$
1
,
4
6
4
.
1
4
N
O
T
E
:
^
e
v
a
'
u
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
s
h
-
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
a
m
o
u
n
t
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
a
n
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
,
o
n
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
a
s
i
s
,
d
r
a
w
n
f
r
o
m
H
y
a
l
i
t
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
.
T
h
i
s
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
i
d
d
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
s
'
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
$
3
0
.
5
5
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
-
f
o
o
t
,
a
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
-
w
o
r
t
h
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
4
0
-
y
e
a
r
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
a
n
@
8
.
1
2
5
%
.
H
O
M
E
O
F
M
O
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
A
T
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
G
A
T
E
W
A
Y
T
O
Y
E
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
P
A
R
K
<^
y •^
^
0
f:
<T
0 ^
^
^
!
-
^
^
.
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
20
E
.
O
L
I
V
E
•
P
.
O
.
B
O
X
1
2
3
0
BO
Z
E
M
A
N
,
M
O
N
T
A
N
A
5
9
7
7
1
-
1
2
3
0
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
PH
O
N
E
:
(
4
0
6
)
5
8
2
-
2
2
8
0
•
F
A
X
:
(
4
0
6
)
5
8
2
-
2
2
6
3
D
a
t
e
:
M
a
r
c
h
1
5
,
2
0
0
7
CA
S
H
I
N
L
I
E
U
O
F
W
A
T
E
R
R
I
G
H
T
S
Fo
r
a
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
T
h
e
R
i
d
g
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
-
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
N
a
m
e
:
S
t
e
v
e
R
o
d
e
r
i
c
k
,
R
i
d
g
e
L
L
C
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
1
5
1
M
c
G
e
e
D
r
i
v
e
Bo
z
e
m
a
n
,
M
o
n
t
a
n
a
5
9
7
1
5
A
r
e
a
:
Zo
n
i
n
g
:
0
.
6
1
4
a
c
r
e
s
R
-
0
Wa
t
e
r
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
(s
o
m
e
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
u
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
o
l
l
a
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
)
0.
6
1
4
a
c
r
e
s
X
13
u
n
i
t
s
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
7.
9
8
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
7.
9
8
u
n
i
t
s
X
2
.
5
p
e
r
/
u
n
i
t
19
.
9
5
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
X
1
3
5
g
p
c
d
X
3
6
5
d
a
y
/
y
e
a
r
19
.
9
5
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
98
3
,
0
3
6
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
3.
0
2
a
c
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
C
a
s
h
-
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
a
m
o
u
n
t
3
.
0
2
a
c
-
f
t
X
$
3
0
.
5
5
/
a
c
-
f
t
X
1
1
.
7
6
6
8
=
T
O
T
A
L
C
A
S
H
-
I
N
-
L
I
E
U
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
$
1
,
0
8
5
.
6
1
NO
T
E
:
T
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
s
h
-
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
a
m
o
u
n
t
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
a
n
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
,
o
n
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
a
s
i
s
,
d
r
a
w
n
fr
o
m
H
y
a
l
i
t
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
.
T
h
i
s
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
i
d
d
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
s
'
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
$
3
0
.
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
-
f
o
o
t
,
a
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
-
w
o
r
t
h
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
4
0
-
y
e
a
r
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
a
n
@
8.
1
2
5
%
.
HO
M
E
O
F
M
O
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
A
T
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
G
A
T
E
W
A
Y
T
O
Y
E
L
L
O
W
S
T
O
N
E
P
A
R
K
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 1
November 2, 2021
The Ridge Lot 6
Traffic Calculations
Below are the average daily trips and peak hour trips, as calculated using the 8th edition of the ITE Trip
Generation Report.
General Office = 11.01 ADT per 1,000 sf
Residential Condo = 5.81 ADT per Dwelling Unit
Office = 7,560 sf
Residential Units = 6 units
Office = 7,560sf / 1,000 x 11.01 ADT = 84 ADT (11 Peak Hour Trips)
Residential = 6 units x 5.81 ADT = 35 ADT (3 Peak Hour Trips)
Total Proposed ADT = 119 ADT (14 Peak Hour Trips)
The original PUD included 12,000 sf of office space, which translates to 132 ADT (18 Peak Hour Trips) using
the ITE Trip Generator. The proposed 119 ADT (14 Peak Hour Trips) is less than the planned ADT per the
PUD.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406‐570‐3676
Sincerely,
________________ _
Garrett Schultz, P.E.
Headwaters Engineering, Inc.
H:\1086\016\DOCS\Site Plan\2‐2_traffic summary_Lot 6.doc
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 1
The Ridge
Lot 6 of Amended Plat J‐456 of the Ridge Athletic Club Subdivision
Sanitary Sewer Usage
The proposed project includes 6 residential apartments and roughly 7,560 square feet of commercial space on
approximately 0.344 acres. Average day residential flows were calculated using the City of Bozeman standard of 2.11
persons per residential unit at 89 gpd per person. Utilizing the wastewater flow for Community Commercial from Tab V‐
2 of the City of Bozeman Design Regulations, the estimated commercial flow is 2,400 gallons per acre per day.
Average Residential Daily Flowrate = (6 units) x (2.11 people/unit) x (89 gpd/person) = 1,127 gpd
Average Commercial Daily Flowrate = 2,400 gal/acre/day x 0.344 acres = 826 gpd
Total Average Daily Sewer Flow = 1,952 gpd
The City of Bozeman standard 2.11 persons per residential unit was multiplied by 6 units to determine an equivalent
residential population of 13 people plus the estimated commercial equivalent of 64 people (13 gpd per employee per
DEQ Circular 4). The total population of 77 people yielded a peaking factor of 4.5. The peaking factor, PF, was calculated
by the following formula, where P = population (thousands):
PF = 18 + P0.5
4 + P0.5
Using a peak hour factor of 4.5 and adding the City’s infiltration allowance of 150 gallons per acre per day resulted in a
combined peak hourly flowrate of 8,837 gpd.
Peak Hourly Flowrate = ADF x PHF + 150 gpd/acre
Peak Hourly Flowrate = 1,952 gpd x 4.5 + 150 gpd x 0.344 ac = 8,837 gpd
8,837 gpd / 1,440 min/day = 6.14 gpm
Water Usage
The proposed project includes 6 residential apartments and roughly 7,560 square feet of commercial space on
approximately 0.344 acres. Using the City of Bozeman empirical data of 170 gpd/person for residential flows,
Headwaters estimates a total residential average daily demand (ADD) of 1.49 gallons per minute. Utilizing a commercial
rate of 10,000 gallons per 1,000 square foot of commercial area per year results in 0.14 gpm. Using the City’s max day
flow factor of 2.3, results in a maximum daily demand of 3.77 gpm. Multiplying the average daily flow by the City’s peak
hour factor of 3, results in a peak hour demand of 37.4 gpm.
Average Residential Daily Flowrate = (6 units) x (2.11 people/unit) x (170 gpd/person) = 2,152 gpd
2,152 gpd /1,440 min per day = 1.49 gpm
Average Commercial Daily Flowrate = 10,000 gallons per year /1,000 square feet x 7,560 sf / 365 days=
207 gpd = 0.14 gpm
Total Daily Flowrate = 1.64 gpm
Maximum Hour Flowrate = ADF x 3 = 1.64 gpm x 3 = 4.92 gpm
Maximum Daily Flowrate = ADF x 2.3 = 1.64 gpm x 2.3 = 3.77 gpm
Calculations completed by Garrett Schultz, P.E.
H:\1086\016\DOCS\Site Plan\2‐3_water ‐sewer usage_Lot 6.doc
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 3
Civil Sheets
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 4
CIL Parkland
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 3
November 5, 2021
The Ridge Lot 6
Cash in Lieu of Parkland Narrative
Per Resolution 4784, the City of Bozeman has set criteria for the evaluation of cash in lieu of parkland.
Factors to consider in review of cash in lieu of parkland:
1. The City’s preference for acquisition of real property for parks.
The low number of proposed residential units only results in 0.10 acres of required park land. This small
area would likely create a small, neglected pocket‐park within the mostly commercial subdivision. The
Ferguson Park is just 0.3 miles northwest of the proposed project, while the Cottonwood Condo Park is
0.2 miles north, and the larger Valley West Park is 0.4 miles to the north. There is an existing sidewalk
and trail system that provides great access to the existing parks. The Ridge Athletic Club Subdivision also
already contains just over 3 acres of open space accessed by trails and sidewalks throughout the
subdivision.
2. The desirability and suitability of land within or proposed by the development for parks and
playgrounds based on size, topography, shape, water supply, location or other circumstances.
The subject property is Zoned R‐O, and is surrounded by businesses within The Ridge Athletic Club
Subdivision. Using roughly ¼ of this site for parkland seems like a significant under‐utilization of the
property.
3. Proximity of the development to existing parks and recreational facilities.
As mentioned above, there are three nearby parks that can be accessed using existing trails and
sidewalks.
4. Type, function of, and facilities included within nearby park(s).
The Ferguson Park includes trails, a pavilion & picnic shelters, manicured lawn and playground
equipment. The Park is new and in great condition. The Cottonwood Condo Park is also new and includes
lawn, trails, a creek, and a picnic shelter. Additionally, the Valley West Park located to the north (only 0.4
miles from Lot 6) has a complete trail loop, a pond, picnic shelters, beach volleyball, fishing
opportunities, and a manicured lawn. The Park is well maintained.
5. The level of service (as defined in the adopted city‐wide park master plan) provided by nearby
park(s).
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 2 of 3
Chapter 7 of the 2007 Bozeman Park Master Plan describes this area as “not being adequately served
with parks.” However, since the publishing of the Park Master Plan, the Ferguson Park and Cottonwood
Condo Parks have been constructed, which are both within walking distance of the subject property, and
will serve the residents there.
6. Correspondence with the City’s adopted city‐wide master plan.
One goal of the park plan is to collect cash in lieu of parkland to allow the funds to be amassed to fund
park acquisition and development. Another goal is to create bigger parks. Not creating a small pocket
park, within a mostly commercial subdivision, when a large neighborhood park is nearby seems to align
with the goals of the park plan. The great connectivity to the surrounding parks and existing trail system
in the area also aligns with the park plan.
7. Whether the proposal provides an opportunity for partnerships, or whether grant funds are
currently available.
The collection of cash in lieu of parkland funds for small projects like this will help fund larger projects
and money to help foster partnerships to help the money go farther. This lot is not large enough to
facilitate a joint park.
8. Whether the developer or future property owners are required to participate in the costs of the
maintenance of nearby parks or recreational facilities.
The new park tax that was passed in the City of Bozeman ensures that all property owners within the
City help to share in the cost of park maintenance.
9. Long term availability of city funds for maintenance of the proposed facilities.
The new park tax that was passed in the City of Bozeman helps to ensure that there is long term
availability of funds for facility maintenance.
10. Requirements established pursuant to 38.27.020 and 38.27.030, BMC regarding residential
density.
The project contains 6 residential dwelling units on 0.344 acres. The 3,444 sf of open space on the lot
can be subtracted per Section 38.700.130 of Bozeman’s Unified Development Code (UDC). Also, per UDC
Table 38.420.020.A, the maximum required dedication per acre is 12 dwellings at .03 acres per dwelling.
The required parkland and cash‐in‐lieu calculations are as follows:
0.344 acres – 0.08 acres of Open Space = 0.264 acres (net lot area)
12 units per acre (max density) x 0.264 acres = 3.17 dwelling units
3.17 dwelling units x 0.03 acres per dwelling unit = 0.10 acres of required parkland
The owners elect to provide cash‐in‐lieu of parkland
Cash‐in‐lieu appraisal value= $2.07 per square foot
Required CILP = $2.07 x 0.10 acres x 43,560 sf/acre = $901.69
11. The expressed preference of the developer.
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 3 of 3
Due to the small nature of the site, the developer desires to utilize cash in lieu of parkland. The addition
of parkland to this site would reduce the number of commercial and residential units below what is
efficient and profitable.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406‐570‐3676.
Sincerely,
_____________
Garrett Schultz, P.E.
Headwaters Engineering, Inc.
H:\1086\016\DOCS\Site Plan\parkland cash in lieu_Lot 6.doc
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 5
Soil Data
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Gallatin County
Area, MontanaNatural
Resources
Conservation
Service
November 4, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11
Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Gallatin County Area, Montana.......................................................................13
510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes......................................13
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................15
Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................15
Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................15
Hydrologic Soil Group.................................................................................15
References............................................................................................................20
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
50
5
8
0
1
4
50
5
8
0
2
1
50
5
8
0
2
8
50
5
8
0
3
5
50
5
8
0
4
2
50
5
8
0
4
9
50
5
8
0
5
6
50
5
8
0
1
4
50
5
8
0
2
1
50
5
8
0
2
8
50
5
8
0
3
5
50
5
8
0
4
2
50
5
8
0
4
9
50
5
8
0
5
6
492593 492600 492607 492614 492621 492628 492635 492642 492649 492656
492593 492600 492607 492614 492621 492628 492635 492642 492649 492656
45° 40' 33'' N
11
1
°
5
'
4
2
'
'
W
45° 40' 33'' N
11
1
°
5
'
3
9
'
'
W
45° 40' 32'' N
11
1
°
5
'
4
2
'
'
W
45° 40' 32'' N
11
1
°
5
'
3
9
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 15 30 60 90Feet
0 4 9 18 27Meters
Map Scale: 1:315 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 25, Sep 2, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 10, 2012—Nov
12, 2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
0.3 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 0.3 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Gallatin County Area, Montana
510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 56vt
Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Meadowcreek
Setting
Landform:Stream terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 11 inches: loam
Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam
2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R044BP815MT - Subirrigated Grassland
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Blossberg
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Terraces
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Ecological site:R044BS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Beaverton
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R044BS354MT - Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z.
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and
qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in
the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated
by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This
aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.
Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly
measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil
properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil
features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features
include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the
use and management of the soil.
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
15
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at
or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group
50
5
8
0
1
4
50
5
8
0
2
1
50
5
8
0
2
8
50
5
8
0
3
5
50
5
8
0
4
2
50
5
8
0
4
9
50
5
8
0
5
6
50
5
8
0
1
4
50
5
8
0
2
1
50
5
8
0
2
8
50
5
8
0
3
5
50
5
8
0
4
2
50
5
8
0
4
9
50
5
8
0
5
6
492593 492600 492607 492614 492621 492628 492635 492642 492649 492656
492593 492600 492607 492614 492621 492628 492635 492642 492649 492656
45° 40' 33'' N
11
1
°
5
'
4
2
'
'
W
45° 40' 33'' N
11
1
°
5
'
3
9
'
'
W
45° 40' 32'' N
11
1
°
5
'
4
2
'
'
W
45° 40' 32'' N
11
1
°
5
'
3
9
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 15 30 60 90Feet
0 4 9 18 27Meters
Map Scale: 1:315 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana
Survey Area Data: Version 25, Sep 2, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 10, 2012—Nov
12, 2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
Table—Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to
4 percent slopes
C 0.3 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 0.3 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
20
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
21
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 6
Existing Plat
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 7
Stormwater Memo, Existing Stormwater Design Reports
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 2 of 6
Introduction
The Ridge Lot 6 is part of The Ridge Athletic Club Subdivision PUD. A Stormwater Design Report for
the PUD was submitted by C&H Engineers in March of 2007. The site plan for Lot 6 includes one
mixed‐use building. The building is proposed to be two levels, with a total footprint of 7,560 square
feet.
The lot is 0.344 acres, as shown on Plat J‐465 for the Ridge Athletic Club Subdivision. The existing lot
is in the SW ¼ of Section 10, T2S, R5E, PMM in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The lot is
currently vacant and zoned R‐O.
The 2007 Stormwater Design Report accounted for development on Lot 6. However, there is a small
increase of impervious area proposed with the Site Plan for Lot 6. This memo outlines the ability of
the existing storm water facilities to handle the storm runoff from Lot 6, including the small increase
in impervious area. The storm water plan follows the design standards set forth by the City of
Bozeman in Design Standards and Specifications Policy, March 2004 and subsequent addenda.
Storm Water Runoff
Storm water runoff from the project will be conveyed via surface flow in catch curb and gutters to
curb openings or in shallow swales to a pipe under the sidewalk to the existing retention ponds. Lot
6 comprises parts of Drainage Area 2 and Drainage Area 3, shown on the Drainage Area Map in the
Stormwater Design Report, and also attached with this submittal. Minor changes from the Drainage
Areas were made to reflect existing and proposed site conditions, as shown on the attached Grading
and Drainage Sheet C‐3. The portions of Lot 2 that contribute to Drainage Area 2 are the sidewalk
along the south of the building, the sidewalk along the west side of the building, and the grassy areas
west of that sidewalk. Drainage Area 2 flows into Retention Pond #2, which fills to a depth of 1.5
feet, and then flows through an overflow pipe into Retention Pond #1 as needed.
Drainage Area #3 flows into Retention Pond #3. The portion of Lot 6 that contributes to Drainage
Area #3 includes all remaining area of Lot 6 not included in Drainage Area 2 (the building’s roof, the
sidewalk along the east building edge, and landscaped areas north of the building). The runoff from
this area will flow through a 6” PVC culvert running east to west, beneath the sidewalk east of the
building, before daylighting east of the sidewalk and flowing into Retention Pond #3.
In the 2007 Design Report, Drainage Area 2 included 102,794 square feet of impervious area, and
Drainage Area 3 included 30,922 square feet of impervious area.
For Drainage Area 2, a 343 square‐foot sidewalk is planned to serve ingress/egress to the west side
of the building. Additionally, sidewalk requirements have been updated in the City of Bozeman
Unified Development code, causing an increase to sidewalk surface area along the front of the
building by 457 square feet. The portion (3,375 sf) of the roof that was in Drainage Area 2 in the
Design Report will go to Drainage Area 3 instead. This decreased the impervious area of Drainage
Area 2 to 100,219 square feet. Also included as an addition to the Drainage Area is 1,833 square feet
of grassy area west of the building, per as‐built site conditions.
For Drainage Area 3, the final building design is 828 square feet larger than the planned footprint.
Additionally, the complete runoff from the building is planned to go to Drainage Area 3, rather than
a portion going to Drainage Area 2, so an additional increase of 3,375 square feet of roof area is also
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 3 of 6
included in Drainage Area 3. However, the 1,833 square feet of grassy area west of the building is
removed from Drainage Area 3 and will instead flow to Drainage Area 2 per as‐built site conditions.
The larger building footprint increased the actual impervious area in Drainage Area 3 to 35,125
square feet, and reduced the grassy area to 52,132 square feet. See the Grading and Drainage Sheet
C‐4 for details.
Lot 6 has no effect on Drainage Area 1, shown in the Drainage Area Map.
Storm Sewer Facilities
Storm sewer facilities were designed for the 25‐year storm using Manning’s equation. Time to
concentration, contributing area, and weighted C factors were calculated in the Design Report. The
weighted C factors have been adjusted with the revised impervious area, and the runoff was re‐
calculated as shown below:
Drainage Area 3
o Proposed Paved Area: 6,096 sf (no change)
o Paved Area included in the 2007 Design Report: 6,096 sf
o Proposed Roof Area: 29,029 sf
o Roof Area included in the 2007 Design Report: 24,826 sf
o Additional Roof Area to account for: 4,203 sf
o Proposed Grass Area: 52,132 sf
o Grass Area included in the 2007 Design Report: 55,136 sf
o Decrease in Grass Area to account for: 3,004 sf
Pipe #1
o Only the area on Lot 6 contributing to Drainage Area 3 will go through the pipe
o Revised C Factor for portion contributing to Drainage Area 3 only: 0.62 (0.85 x 7,560 + 0.3 x
5,637 / 13,197)
o Revised time of concentration (tc)
Slope = 0.5%, C = 0.64, Cf = 1.1, Length of Basin (D) = 140 feet
tc = 1.87 x (1.1 – C x Cf) x (D1/2 / S1/3)
tc = 14.8 minutes = 0.25 hours
o Intensity
I = 0.78 x tc ^ (‐0.64) in / hr
I = 1.91 in/hr
o Q = CIA = 0.62 x 1.91 x 0.27 = 0.32 cfs required pipe capacity
o Available Pipe Capacity of proposed 6” PVC per attached proposed calculations = 0.55 cfs
o The proposed 6” PVC has more than enough capacity for all the runoff, including the
increase in impervious area
Retention Ponds
The retention ponds were sized according to the City of Bozeman Design Standards, to capture the
entire volume of the 10‐year, 2‐hour storm event. The retention ponds were also sized to retain the
first half‐inch of runoff from all impervious areas within the Drainage Area.
Drainage Area 2
o Proposed Roof Area: 6,813 sf
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 4 of 6
o Roof Area included in the 2007 Design Report: 10,188 sf
o Decrease in Roof Area to account for: 3,375 sf
o Proposed Paved Area: 93,406 sf
o Paved Area included in the 2007 Design Report: 92,606 sf
o Additional Paved Area to account for: 800 sf
o Proposed Grass Area: 7,431 sf
o Grass Area included in the 2007 Design Report: 6,055 sf
o Decrease in Grass Area to account for: 1,376 sf
Combined Retention Ponds #1 and #2
o Revised C Factor: 0.86 (0.9 x 93,406 + 0.3 x 7,431+ 0.85 x 6,813 / 107,650)
o I = 0.068 ft (from the 2007 Design Report)
o Q = CIA = 0.86 x 0.068 ft x 108,849 sf = 6,262 cf runoff
o Planned runoff from the 2007 Design Report = 6,380 sf
o Decrease of 118 cf
o Ponds 1 and 2 are connected by a culvert and essentially serve as one combined pond
o Retention Pond #1 combined with Retention Pond #2 has more than enough capacity to
store the 10‐year, 2‐hour storm (especially with the decrease in runoff)
o Initial Abstraction:
½” Rain x 254,897 square feet of impervious area within Drainage Areas 1 and 2
.5 x 1/12 x 254,897 = 10,620 cubic feet, which is less than the 17,970 cubic foot
capacity of the combined Retention Ponds 1 and 2
Retention Pond #3
o Revised C Factor: 0.52 (0.9 x 6,096 + 0.3 x 52,132 + 0.85 x 29,029 / 87,257)
o I = 0.068 ft (from the 2007 Design Report)
o Q = CIA = 0.52 x 0.068 ft x 87,257 sf = 3,114 cf runoff
o Include runoff from Ravalli St.: 1,382 cf (from the 2007 Design Report) + 3,114 cf = 4,496 cf
o Planned runoff from the 2007 Design Report = 4,315 cf
o Increase of 181 cf
o The volume of Pond #3 is 5,099 cf per the 2007 Design Report
o Retention Pond #3 has more than enough capacity to store the 10‐year, 2‐hour storm,
even with the proposed small increase in impervious area
o Initial Abstraction:
½” Rain x 53,761 square feet of impervious area within Drainage Areas 3 and Ravalli
St.
.5 x 1/12 x 53,761 = 2,240 cubic feet, which is less than the 5,099 cubic foot
capacity of Retention Pond #3
Conclusion
Storm water analysis and calculations indicate that the proposed storm water management plan for
The Ridge Athletic Club Subdivision Lot 6 project is adequate to safely convey the 10‐year, 25‐year,
and 100‐year storm events while satisfying state and local regulations for peak attenuation and
stormwater storage. The existing retention ponds are sized adequately to handle both the 10‐year
and required initial abstraction storm events, even with a net increase in impervious area. The 100‐
year storm flows are routed away from the proposed building as a result of the site and parking lot
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 5 of 6
grading. The first floor is set over 3’ above Ravalli St. allowing the storm ponds to overflow much
before inundating the building.
Appendix A—Calculations
6” PVC Capacity Calcs
List of References
City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, March 2004, and all addenda.
The Ridge Athletic Subdivision Design Report – (2007 C&H)
H:\1086\018\DOCS\Site Plan\Stormwater Memo_Ridge 7A.doc
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net Page 6 of 6
Appendix A
Calculations
Project Description
Friction Method Manning Formula
Solve For Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.010
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Normal Depth 0.45 ft
Diameter 0.50 ft
Results
Discharge 0.55 ft³/s
Flow Area 0.19 ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.25 ft
Hydraulic Radius 0.15 ft
Top Width 0.30 ft
Critical Depth 0.38 ft
Percent Full 90.0 %
Critical Slope 0.00672 ft/ft
Velocity 2.95 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.14 ft
Specific Energy 0.59 ft
Froude Number 0.66
Maximum Discharge 0.55 ft³/s
Discharge Full 0.52 ft³/s
Slope Full 0.00568 ft/ft
Flow Type SubCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.00 ft
Length 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 90.00 %
Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
6 Inch PVC
11/9/2021 4:18:09 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page
GVF Output Data
Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s
Normal Depth 0.45 ft
Critical Depth 0.38 ft
Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft
Critical Slope 0.00672 ft/ft
6 Inch PVC
11/9/2021 4:18:09 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03]
27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of2Page
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 8
Construction Management Plan
190 NORTHSTAR LANE
BOZEMAN, MT 59718
406‐581‐5730
www.headwatersmt.net
Page 1 of 1
November 10, 2021
The Ridge Lot 6 – Construction Management Plan
The applicant plans to construct the building all at once, with no phasing. Site grading and parking lots have already
been constructed. The Contractor will construct the building, followed by landscaping. Garbage and materials will be
managed throughout the duration of construction. Below is a description of the Construction Management Plan. See
sheet C‐1 General Site Plan for further details also.
PHASE 1
1. Site grading
Already completed. The area will require some additional minor grading once the building is constructed to
ensure drainage towards the appropriate storm facilities.
2. Infrastructure Installation
Already completed. Water and sewer services are stubbed to the lot and will be brought into the building
footprint during site excavation and building prep.
3. Parking Lot
Already completed.
4. Building Pad Construction
Waste material from the foundation dig‐out will be hauled and disposed of off‐site. Suitable fill for the building
base and sub‐base will be trucked in as needed.
5. Building Construction
During the construction of the building, a 20‐30 cubic yard dumpster will be on site to manage the waste
generated by the buildings. A portable toilet will be on site during all phases of construction. The building
materials will be stored in the staging area during construction.
6. General Management
During this phase of construction, the site will be accessed by the paved parking lot access roads. The entire
parking lot has already been paved, allowing for an all‐weather staging/construction area.
The existing hydrant northwest of the property will be utilized for any firefighting needs. Access to the site
shall remain open for EMS services.
H:\1086\018\DOCS\Site Plan\Concept Review\Reference\construction management plan.doc
190 Northstar Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 581‐5730 www.headwatersmt.net
Tab 9
HOA Approval of Sidewalk Encroachment