Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozeman Aquatics Site Analysis 20131122 A �! r _ 3 .1 Milo' �4r. r SITE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR: BOZEMAN INDOOR OUTDOOR AQUATICS FACILITY BOZEMAN, MONTANA NOVEMBER 22, 2013 w T►- rl a MOFESON R O E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY Site Feasibility Report Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility Bozeman, Montana Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Ballard*King & Associates Site Feasibility Analysis 4 Site Analysis 1 Urban Desiqn Analysis 6 Transportation/Access Surrounding Uses Other Factors Site Proximity Map 9 2 Zoning & Development 10 Zoning Community Plan Land Use Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST) Public Schools Wetlands Water Table 3 Project Area and Site Diagram Preliminary Family Aquatics and YMCA Program Area Requirements 11 Preliminary Site Development Diagrams (Each Sitel 12 4 Site Development Analysis, Including Costs 15 Site Development Narrative (comprehensive) Size of Parcel Wetlands/High Ground Water Other Factors Comparison of Site Development Costs (comprehensive) 17 Site Development Narrative (utilities and infrastructure 18 Comparison of Site Development Costs (utilities and infrastructure) 21 Cost Estimate Review by Roen &Associates 23 Appendix A. MDT Site Aerial Photo 24 Site Topography Map 25 Existing Utility Information 26 Geotechnical Investigation - Rouse Avenue Sewer Replacement 29 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, City of Bozeman, MDT Property 37 MacArthur, Means &Wells,Architects, PC 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 MMW Site Feasibility Report Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility Bozeman, Montana B. Rose Park Site Aerial Photo 59 Site Topography Map 60 Site Wetlands Map 61 Plat Map 62 Geotechnical Report, Stoneridge Subdivision 63 C. YMCA Site Aerial Photo 77 Site Topography Map 78 Gallatin County Regional Park- Draft Master Plan 79 Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Gallatin County 911 81 Communications Building D. Streamline Daytime Service Route 87 Streamline Service Extension 88 E. Shared Parking Arrangement Correspondence 89 MacArthur, Means &Wells, Architects, PC 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 M w A �! r _ .1 raw r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY w T►- �i MOFESON R 0 E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY Site Feasibility Report Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility Bozeman, Montana Executive Summary The City of Bozeman plans to build a new Indoor/Outdoor Aquatics Facility. Three sites are under consideration for the project. This report evaluates the suitability, and probable differential first cost of developing the Aquatics Facility on each of the three sites. Site selection must consider both the probability of initial development success and the probability of the long term success of the facility. Factors contributing to initial) development success include:which site is most likely to lead to a positive bond election result, the construction cost of the facility, and project risk. Factors contributing to the long term success of the project include: estimated revenue generation, potential for expansion on the site, and determining which project site best meets the recreational and urban design goals of the community. The three sites under consideration are: • MDT Site: 8.3 acres at the corner of Rouse and Tamarack. It is currently occupied by the Montana Department of Transportation. • Rose Park: 20.5 acres at the corner of Oak and 25th Avenue. The site is currently occupied by park facilities and a disc golf course. • YMCA site: 7.0 acres adjacent to the Gallatin County Regional Park property between Baxter and Oak near Vaquero Parkway. (16 additional acres surrounding the site are also leased from the County for 60 years). The site is currently undeveloped. Based on the initial program, the Aquatics Facility needs a site of approximately 5.8 acres to accommodate building area, exterior facilities, and parking. Preserving the potential for future expansion would require approximately 2.3 additional acres of site area. MDT: Preliminary analysis shows that the MDT site is the least expensive site to develop. The MDT site is also the best served by existing urban infrastructure. The City is considering locating the City of Bozeman Police Station and Municipal Court Facility on the MDT site. The cost analysis assumes that the Aquatics and Police/Municipal Court Facility projects would share costs for demolition of all existing buildings and site paving (MDT is assumed to perform all required environmental remediation). The 8 acre site would not fully accommodate both projects. To meet the total parking demand, some parking would need to be provided on the adjacent County Fairgrounds site. The Fairgrounds Manager indicated interest in mutually beneficial shared parking arrangements on the Fairgrounds property. Any future expansion of either facility on the MDT site would require relocating more parking onto the Fairgrounds. Community concern over the incompatibility of law enforcement uses with an adjacent aquatics facility can be mitigated with good site planning. Highway and rail-oriented vehicle XMacArthur, Means &Wells, Architects, PC M M W 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 1 Site Feasibility Report Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility Bozeman, Montana traffic may warrant a traffic study to evaluate potential impact of commercial traffic passing the site. Street modifications and good site planning/entry points can mitigate traffic impact on facility visitors. Rose Park: Preliminary analysis shows that the Rose Park site would cost approximately$775,410 more to develop than the MDT site. Extending 25th Avenue on the west edge of the site and elevated ground water levels contribute to higher development costs for the Aquatics project at this site. Cost sharing for the extension of 25th Avenue and the associated underground utilities could reduce development costs by $164,660, resulting in a net incremental development cost of approximately$610,750 more than the MDT site. Rose Park is less well served by existing urban infrastructure than the MDT site, but is better served than the YMCA site. Rose Park is the only one of the three sites that is big enough for all of the requirements of the Aquatics project without relying on parking agreements with other adjacent owners. The Fellowship Baptist Church owns property to the west of the site. The Pastor has indicated interest in shared parking arrangements if there was community benefit. YMCA: The Aquatics Facility would share the site with the YMCA's planned 40,000 square foot facility. Sharing common areas within a single building would reduce building cost for both projects. Accounting for building cost sharing, preliminary analysis shows that the YMCA site would cost approximately$758,160 more to develop than the MDT site. Extending Vaquero Parkway on the east edge of the site and elevated ground water levels contribute to higher development costs at the YMCA site. Cost sharing for the extension of Vaquero Parkway and associated underground utilities could reduce development costs by$354,860, resulting in a net incremental development cost of approximately$403,300 more than the MDT site. There is risk in having two funding streams for the joint project. If the Aquatics bond issue fails, there would be a significant loss of momentum for the YMCA portion of the project. If the YMCA did not meet capital campaign goals, their portion of the project would likely change in scope and design. Construction costs would increase if the combined project had to be built in two phases due to funding timing. If the Aquatics facility were constructed before the YMCA, but with locker rooms and common areas sized for both facilities, the first cost would be approximately$1,660,000 more than the Aquatics portion of the joint facility alone. We have assumed that the YMCA will cover these incremental costs at the time of the Aquatics facility construction. The analysis also assumes that the YMCA would be responsible for additional construction costs for shoring, access control, utility extension, etc., that would be required to build the YMCA as a second phase next to an operational Aquatics facility. The Aquatics facility should anticipate XMacArthur, Means &Wells, Architects, PC M M W 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 2 Site Feasibility Report Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility Bozeman, Montana approximately$30,000 of additional cost with a phase-two YMCA construction period to account for lost revenue, additional cleaning, and other operational expenses. The site has the least urban infrastructure and has the fewest nearby residents. Developing a single building to house both the Aquatics facility and the YMCA would create a multi-use community recreation center on one site, with the regional county park adjacent. The site is not large enough to accommodate the joint facility and its required parking. Due to site size and configuration, each project will need to maike concessions to insure the most important individual project goals are maintained. The Aquatics Facility should anticipate no future expansion if located on this site. Preliminary site diagrams developed by MMW and the YMCA's Architect show that most or all of the parking for the Aquatics Facility would need to be located on Gallatin Regional Park property. The County has indicated in general terms that the joint facility could locate some parking on their property.Some parking for the facility would be up to 1/4 mile away from the front entry; this distance may not meet customer expectation. XMacArthur, Means &Wells, Architects, PC M M W 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 3 2743 E. Ravenhill Circle Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 *47-- (303)470-8661 (303)470-8642 Fax bka@ballardking.com B UAM*KJN Assoc EAT ES L T U e n1i 10 To: Kent Means,MMW Architects From: Ken Ballard,President Date: 11/7/13 Re: Bozeman Aquatic Center Site Review I have reviewed the Site Feasibility Report for the Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility and my comments are listed below: - The city does not want to build another stand-alone indoor aquatic center if at all possible. Even with a strong recreational orientation the indoor aspect will never be able to cover its cost of operation and will result in a significant annual subsidy. They already have this situation with the indoor 50 meter and I do not imagine that they want replicate this again. - An outdoor recreational oriented aquatic center can be a stand-alone facility and it has the ability to perform well financially. - Placing both the indoor and outdoor pools in the same facility will maximize revenue, minimize costs and perform the best financially. - Having an indoor aquatic center as part of a larger recreation center (or YMCA) will allow the aquatic center to perform better and also increase use and revenues in the recreation center. The best financial and use scenario would have the indoor and outdoor pools together and directly connected to an indoor recreation center or YMCA. 1 4 Ballard*King &Associates It is absolutely essential that there is adequate parking for all facilities on site. The lack of parking (or even the perception) will reduce use and revenues. This needs to be avoided at all cost. It is also absolutely essential that there is room for expansion of facilities (outdoor pool and recreation center especially). It would not be operationally cost effective to eventually have to look at potentially building additional new facilities elsewhere in the community because the existing site is too small. This is the same situation the city currently has with the 50 meter pool and even the location of the outdoor pool. - You are right to be concerned about tying the aquatic center project to the YMCA facility. While this is the best long term scenario for operations and revenue the timing is a big concern. Raising money for a 40,000 SF YMCA will not be easy and could delay their project considerably. Regarding the three sites here are a few concerns: o MDT—the ability to expand is a big concern. The Police and Courts will always have priority over the aquatic center. o Rose — this seems like the best site (capital costs aside) due to its size. It seems to me that an effort needs to be made to try and move the YMCA to this location. o YMCA — the site is simply too small to accommodate both projects and the required parking. There would be limited to no possibilities for expansion and this would be short sighted. To me it is much more important to choose the right site for long term use and operational success than to be concerned about the initial upfront capital cost implications. The initial capital cost savings will be quickly surpassed by the operational budget implications of the decision. 2 5 A �! r _ .1 raw r URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS w T►- �i MOFESON R O E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY 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. MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC 0 J� 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 6 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 MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 MMW7 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. MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC 0 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 MMW8 5 s 1 r - i r M IE €.y 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 9 A �! r _ .1 Milo' �4r. r ZONING & DEVELOPMENT w T►- �i MOFESON R O E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY 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. zb,, MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC MMW 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 10 A �! r _ .1 Milo' �4r. r PROJECT AREA AND SITE DIAGRAM w T►- �i MOFESON R 0 E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY Preliminary Program Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Family Aquatics Center November 20,2013 /� �{ /� 1 Y 1 1 V! V V 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, 25,764 landscaping SUBTOTAL-AQUATICS-BUILDINGS&POOLS 99,374 2.281 AQUATICS-Parking(w/Transit Adjustment) 112,800 2.590 Adjustment for site irregularity,setbacks,easements, 39,480 landscaping SUBTOTAL-AQUATICS-PARKING 152,280 3.496 AQUATICS-Future Expansion Potential 30,000 0.689 Required Additional Parking for Building Expansion 46,000 1.056 (w/Transit Adjustment) Adjustment for site irregularity,setbacks,easements, 26,600 landscaping 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, 31,010 landscaping 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. 11 27 28 28 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 28 28 -AND-FIRE 30 &RESCUE 489 SPACES FACILITY TOTAL 3 10 m I m 8 UNDERGROUND RETENTION 18 31 SECURE PARKING > n4 5 D 18 n I 22 22 22 21 13 5 I M I — D cn � T AQUATICS T o z 22 22 22 21 CITY OF BOZEMAN cn POLICE STATION & MUNICIPAL COURTS I 6 7 6 I- I PUBLIC ENTRY PARKING TABULATION PROPERTY LINE L REQD FOR POLICE STATION......240 AND MUNICIPAL COURTS** NORTH ROUSE AVENUE REQD FOR AQUATICS*.*..............220 TOTAL NEEDED............................460 TOTAL PROVIDED........................489 **PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE-FINAL PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY +/-10%. �I Er BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER 1 " = 100' MDTLAY ITE T S OU m M w 12 z �yli�F W = O RETENTION Ln � Q 230 SPACES 27 TOTAL 24 24 24 24 19 ■ Lu 23 U W w Q 2 26 N z AQUATICS I26 MAIN ENTRY I J W I I I 13 0 > 1 > O PROPERTY LINE �" PARKING TABULATION WEST OAK STREET REQD FOR AQUATICS*.................220 TOTAL NEEDED...........................220 TOTAL PROVIDED........................230 Lu "PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE-FINAL Q z PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY +/-10% X N Lu Z BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER 1 " 100' ROSE PARK SITE LAYOUT = m M W 13 FOOTBALL FIELD �FT� tiT Ol/ s�0t N NF 20 10 YMCA ........... 20 10 — QRO SHARED - 0 20 10 O m Z RETENTION m AQUATICS 150 SPACES m :[l S D 15 P� m TRAIL SYSTEM `` 30 � �L 30 15 , \ 30 30 P , PARKING TABULATION PP 15 READ FOR YMCA.......................220 REQD FOR AQUATICS• ..220 P Q� 30 TOTAL NEEDED...........................440 �v 300 SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED.......................450 "PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE-FINAL 30 C� PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY +/-10% P 15 P 30 BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER - ' ill = 100' YMCA SITE LAYOUT ' MM 14 P � A �! r _ .1 Milo' �4r. r SITE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING COSTS w T►- �i MOFESON R O E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY 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 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 1/4 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 MMW 125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802 16 Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Family Aquatics Center Site First Cost Comparison November 14,2013 M M W Approximate Cost Information Least-Expensive Site Approximate cost/(savings) Site Variances MDT Rose park YMCA Utility/development cost variation See Monison-Maierle Break-down $443,700 $769,110 $1,041,860 Water Table** Estimated additional building cost based on water table elevations at surrounding sites $400,000 $400,000 Wetlands remediation Assumes 1 acre disturbed $50,000 $50,000 Streamline stipend for serving Y or Rose Park $0 $0 May be required;additional info from Streamline required Y site combined facitlly cost reductions Shared lobby/entry sequence -$92,500 Shared locker rooms -$150,000 Reduce exterior wall -$30,000 Shared community room -$87,500 Y site combined facility cost addtions Fire area separation wall $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/lost revenue during Y construction Preliminary Program MacArthur,Means Wells Architects,P.C. 17 M� S�N Bozeman Indoor/Outdoor Family Aquatic Center - ' MMERLE,,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 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 27" 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 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. Gradinq 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 MOMSO�/� DDTc �T BOZEMAN AQUATICS CENTER lY Comparison of Site Development Costs M MERLE,INC. Date: 10/29/13 An Ernplovee-Owned Company 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 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 MOMSO�/� DDTc �T BOZEMAN AQUATICS CENTER lY Comparison of Site Development Costs M MERLE,INC. Date: 10/29/13 An Einplovee-Owned Company 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 $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 25th 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 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 A �! r _ .1 Milo' �4r. r APPENDIX A - MDT SITE w T►- �i MOFESON R 0 E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY Printing:Layout Page http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?83 fir.. Bj1,01 t _ - Irk. - YF;' �•` AL Aw if \. E J.I1111)er_ Ti r ack._ . J " 24 1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:33 AM _ r 74 -mm now soot . _ f ul TAMAR CK y, 4� � Y _ .4-m aAmmmoliK D 2 DO y�p _ TC $G,QLb Ih/ 1=E 'f' Igg! 10199 ' -'�"CafroUlo — /NPT S I Z � O .,. U � DEICER TANKS W V} -1ww w i cn w uj ui LL Q Q UL = W ° a 0 i < 0 p STEAM ROOM' z a W ; aui te , i I UJ o i SHOP' L. ' o li � � - - --= w v FT ' 4f. Ltli _, I �I z �!� _ o f ' OFFICE TAMARACKSTREET 26 JOU/^Ci r t •�'ri 1-i C�'�1 )�..•F� -'r.. .,.R ._.-,.- �_ � 4.�� >r't"rw C;;:e�i�s�_ K.,.:.+�.!!�'c i _ ! ,i'; W�.^fir fCl � •7�•c,}/ r../C7 sem' --�--i{._rc`T-•—; ��„�f-•c!�'ti_ "l f d f _ .. f 27 i J ` - a�c�J j w - 1 ~ a rf 28 GEOTECIINICAL 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. 0. Box 7847 Missoula, MT 59807 Office: (406) 721-2182 Project No. 02071.4.0073 29 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 2A 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 43 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 g Soil Boring Logs 10 Summary of Classification Tests 20 Key to Classifications Used on Logs sheet 21 Graphical Classifications 23 - 1 - 30 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 materials'for 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. a. 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 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 hanuner 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-band 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. TABLE A Summary of SPT Blow Count and Consistency BIow 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 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 Densit 0-5 Very Loose 6- 10 Loose 11 -310 Medium Dense 31 - 50 Dense 50+ Very Dense 2.4 Site Geology 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 Iocations, 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 9.3 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). -4- 33 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, B45, 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 determine natural moisture conditions. The results of our laboratory tests are summarized on the "Summary of Classification Tests" in the Appendix to this report. 4.4 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 23 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 f 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 reconninend 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) may 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. - 6 - 35 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.,:additional 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. Respectfully submitted, '\N E11QE ES 0, :CS William W. Weikel P.E. `�'''' . O Project Engineer %�'��llu;,�:uiru ttt'"t�1"` ~� T ,5* JOHN JOHN J. 1 i JlCra rd, P.E. CRAW�=ORD ;Y '� 4382 E ;U. Senior Geotechnical Engineer O cif %l _iS--._....GISTZ >> ONAI- - 7 - 36 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: Hyalite Environmental, LLP P.O. Box 90 Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730 (406) 763-4228 June 2013 37 Cover Photo: View of the property of interest ii Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LIQ City of Bozeman-MDT Property June 2 Table of Contents Listof Figures..................................................................................................... iv Listof Appendices.............................................................................................. iv ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................ 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 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LIQ, City of Bozeman-MDT Property June 20 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 facility with concrete floors and floor drains. A-1 Photo 3. Example of storage of chemicals/oils in 55 gallon drums—stored on concrete floor pad within an enclosed building. A-2 Photo 4. Mechanic shop—newer building built in 1990's. Remaining buildings 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 iv Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,L City of Bozeman-MDT Property 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,LICE City of Bozeman-MDT Property 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 o Release#345,released 7/16/1990, resolved 9/16/1999,Not Active o Release#1136,released 3/31/1992,resolved 7/22/2008,Not Active o 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. 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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. 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty June 2013 43 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 3 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 Superfund 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- B131). 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 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 B142-B143). 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 LUST sites within %2 mile of the property of interest. Site Name Address Facility Release Date of Resolve Active ID ID Release Date 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 421 N Broadway 1612812 1458 11/6/1992 12/2/1993 No Transmission Center 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) 7 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 B195-B196) 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 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 B 193-B 194) 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 B218-B219; ) 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). 9 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 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 11 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 Erny 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 Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 Date of Resolve Date Active ID Release 1604052 345 7/16/1990 9/16/1999 No 1604052 1136 3/31/1992 7/22/2008 No 1604052 71j319 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 13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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. 6/28/2013 Chris Thelen, P.E. Hyalite Environmental, LLP Date 8.0 Opinion 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 14 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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. 15 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty 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 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 hjjp://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.foiaguery.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.el2a.gov/enviro/index.html . Western Regional Climate Center, 2013, " Bozeman Montana State University weather station (241044)," June 2013, from http://wrcc.dri.edu. 17 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental,LLP City of Bozeman-MDTProperty June 2013 58 A �! r _ .1 Milo' �4r. r APPENDIX B - ROSE PARK w T►- �i MOFESON R O E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY Printing:Layout Page http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?41 AV 0 t.i ^1. e 59 1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:35 AM Zoo �I j Z NZ OaFQ mi GQ1L]iVl]Y X== _� /h EmSDtlG a o L U CURB&GUTTER J,�� CULVERT lil i I Z O STORM6RAIN oll O MANHOLE 0 Z 'kJ1AP PI&S 1 O,. p -<-S > - --�_ ✓�� I -�-�/ �� `J �' ? �, —W— WATER MAIN �w> W(m J/ ��� '\\�`/ ',� �, VALVE NT o- FIRE HYDRANT 3�� QLJO UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC Z Qw0 —E— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC O L QY I/ GU WIRE&ANCHOR 1 -m 0 UTILITY POLE I IE-I c�mJ 4220_ -xx- / WIRE FENCE CREEK \, / ;i y, + CONTROL POINT Uuou U V BARRIER POST zo o pW o U \ �j PROPERTY PIN j ELECTRICAL BOX 1\ EDGE OF ASPHALT EDGE OF GRAVEL ¢p p APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE �I ___assa___ CONTOUR r r r � FILL AREA -4/1' INLET 30 ICY- 15"X 22"CMP 727.93 I 4728 a W Q ———— I I \\ \ 1 1 11 \� SIDEWALK r w 21 RCP v -"'�/'k 1 F.L.4727.85 J .X58 RCP - / "' Wv FEST O' F.L. 4t 27.9T Q - E—E c W S f -4-- / --02 -f\LC�- iF N RCP W/FET � 0 100' 200' 300' O 1 .L. a72s.aa V I II Im BENCHMARK,SEE'NOTE d S C A L EEND OF ASPHALT BASIS OF BEARING: ANNIE SUB. PH.2 LL- OF OAK STREET Q O BARRICADE O W U O BENCHMARK: ELEVATION 4734.83; SET BM ON NORTHWEST BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT, NORTH SIDE OF OAK STREET. BOLT IS STAMPED "BM". 1 SHEET N0. B96-54.DWC SHEETS 60 4 r , 4 X e Y ♦..ti. w e a r � 4 i r T FC dig PROPERTY LINE WETLAND i k a +s BOUNDARY L 1 Aa- POTENTIAL WETLANDBOUNDARY 4- 1, r t, L iry{{^} f VA /rt t ! "F ' o 4, .dT' sol2,3e8.'8N5I NW I 1,40:�13e �1 ' F0V r- 322-54'322.54' 1n sr w'fi,+ W d urry Fowwst -* Ln 00 to w pjOy t0 ne.� ryLnC 30 O 1Z 09 U L+JCQ 01 IO L Qoo N ZHD Q w zl �� SCALE1"=200' OMf 4 ► �W�'u-) W EXISTING PROPERTY LINE L=199.43' aZ S R=340.00' P4 f i DELTA=33'36'24" ROSE PARK " i CHORD=196.58' N15'00 33 W 10 a co City of Bozeman l + 45 45' o Property CL NEW 60' ROAD AND b UTILITY EASEMENT, 30' y� EACH SIDE OF CL Y �•�� �+ EXISTING PROPERTY LINE S W LOT 5 �L`s Nt,s N Fellow Baptist Church '� N 's of Bozeman 0'P-\ 1'-' 1 '- L=220.96' 796 D, Page 2195 + R=400.00' DELTA=31'38'59" 1/2- REBAR AND CHORD=218.16' PLASTIC CAP SET N15*513'16"W FOR THIS SURVEY 6 C5 tit orr cV.IL. tO1i+_ S89'41'06"W + R (30.00' EASEMENT CL TO SE LOT 5 S01'47'54"W 488.42' J OAK STREET 0 32.50' CENTER OF SECTION 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M. BASIS OF BEARING: GPS aMQEMSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'_CER�(,F7CATION: ONTA� I, James Goebel, Professional Land Surveyor, Montana Registration No.14531 LS, do herby certify that thi 9 survey shows the true and correct dimensions of the above described easement. * JAMES M. � Signed: ___L_ • ,T�i GOEBEEL LOCATED IN THE ANNIE SUBDIVISION Ja s M. Goebel, 14531 LS 14531 LS SECTION 2—T2S, R5E, P.M.M. ENGINEERING L_ GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA Date: �___L �__ NtS 4''C;�S5D 1415 S Montana St r CJ PO Box 3588 DRAWN BY: James M. Goebel �jygL Butte,MT 59701-2839 DATE.: 2/07/07 Phone:(406)723-8213 DRAWING: N25 easement.dwg Fax: (406)723-8328 PAGE f OF 2 62 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Stoneridge Subdivision Bozeman, Montana Submitted to: Lowell Springer Springer Group Architects July 7, 1997 ALLIED 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. PROSECT 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 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.(1960)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 2100 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 05 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 i foot to approximately 4 feet was a very soft layer of Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page,& Lowell Springer Project X414-111 Jul 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 comer 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 Iikely 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. Page64 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) 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. Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 68 Lowell Springer ProjectA14-01 Jud 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 GeneraQ 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 Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 69 Lowell Springer Project A14-01 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%",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. Allier/Engineering Services,Inc. Page Jo Lowell Springer Project A14-01 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 154 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 4.5 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,Inn. Page$1 Lovell 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- I 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 Lowell Springer Project A 14-01 Ault/ 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. Allied Engineering Services,Inc. P49e I4 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. Cr g R. adson 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 .rtin C:1 projectslA14-011repart1414-Ol.rpi T A rh�h aE DOU LAS S. �-c CHANDLER 4j .�w r 74Q3 PE lu 44 th Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page M5 Lowell Springer Project A14-D1 July 7, 1997 REFERENCES Hackett,O.M.,Visher,F.N.,McMurtrey,R.G.,and Steinhilber,W.L. (1964), "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 ldriss, I.M. (1982). "Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes", Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley, California. Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 1-* A �! r _ .1 Milo' �4r. r APPENDIX C - YMCA SITE w T►- �i MOFESON R 0 E N archifecture118 - NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY Printing:Layout Page http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?51 y 7 milli — ,. I 1111111 Y �1l���,harnn.C,rov�,St •.. 8 [. Wl .vVli}tri Perk. St 7 Q : 77 1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:52 AM STREET DEDICATION N 89°41 '58" E 280.21 ' +CP-6'1 (DOC. #2103146) ����}� jT�y L NE POINT NORTHING FASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION - IM TO INV 01576 2973.593 3451.773 4748.19 RPC SEf - 577 2871,630 3687.394 4746.53 RPC SET y 601 1 5090.608 5236.932 4704.36 1 GPS-CP,PK IN WALK L LEGEND b �A zom 4x4• GREEN WOOD PosT EXISTING DESCRIPTION U z�z- N ( N01 12'45"E EXISTING EASEMENT r 3 o� �� MANHOLE F 325. 15 6' BOARD FEN E I'I x;(�,( - TC �`O _ BARRIER POST O N Fi F BUSH OR SHRUB ►� KI CABLE N RISER z IW N89'41 '56"E 800.30' \ E r �o � �\ lCABLE N RISER FLUSH — o JIr CONCRETE v ,�2 0 100' 200' 300' i -- ? z Dc � �`` NU EA EA`� � _ I� - -3415 � CONTOUR S C A L E \, i V o N�pL p �a � � �� `v � � + CONTROL POINT W Q - o I /� T - I Itir, CURB BOX UO .. W o F7 '\o EASEMENT CURVE TABLE cuR6 & GUTTER o CA Uw L 1 r » CULVERT > IN Z m 78L�� 33 E �' ° w 0 0 "' iDB \ x> `� DELINEATOR POST w � 13B g� w o8 / CURVE RADIUS DELTA ANGLE ARC LENGTH CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH www Q DITCH \ `\\ . :p` '1; 75. 0 _- , DITCH 000 wwz N /� l \ Q� C1 450.00' 08'00'00" 62.83' NO2'26'09"W 62.78' � ° L0 '� /`. ° `o - — EDGE OF ASPHALT woo C2 550.00' 08'00'00" 76.79' NO2'26'09"W 76.73' �" w // mss, � ^. �' -------- - ------ ---- EDGE OF GRAVEL v 1 ' p � o vo wl- ELECTRICAL BOX EASEMENT LINE TABLE oQ 1, r / A v 1 1, m ELECTRICAL BOX LU F- F- I'\ 0 i,A /r�%` �' '� �. _ x x FENCE - WIRE bz \ \ R 1275.00 LINE BEARING DISTANCE U 4704 T '- V , - - A. �� . \ �� / // ° 0 0 0 o FENCE - WOOD w-g - L= 682.28 L1 N01'33'51 "E 313.10' n s ¢ p6 FIRE HYDRANT 1 WA i � V 0 =3039'37" L2 N06'26'09"W 102.52' ® GAS METER �� /�� �, n ' 4jG61 A p6 �� x / / p ,'` a Ch Brg= N26'54 16 W GUY WIRE 00 m ED 1 Ch= 674.17' ® INLET , �/ ! ^o b \ \ IRRIGATION VALVE �iNILo NOTE FRO LYNN BACON: �Q ` \ W-2 edges a unstable and 'o < LIGHT POLE will ex and 1 15 feet on east side _� 4711 and may canon west to BB ditch ^o" \ E OVERHEAD ELECTRIC 2 l� �- 4708 -_ ' OB i/ / I i Ll A A TFL OVERHEAD TELEPHONE r�/ meq// J ,\ 4 0 _ R= 1200.00 POWER POLE �'v L 1642.55 RETAINING WALL 7Q � 78'25r33n J — ` - ® SPRINKLER O COMMUNICATIONS RISER h Brg= N50°47' 14 W r, C B — 47,2 — —� Y © COMMUNICATIONS RISER FLUSH QQ , I WAV I � r 1 N90-00'00"E � � _ Ch= 1517.29 �- - i ` �______ J 373.65' \ - - - - - - - - - PROPOSED WETLAND SETBACK % r !� 12" HDPE 'e l \ \ n TRAFFIC SIGN 4710' , r _ A I I / �� TREE - CONIFEROUS p Q TREE - DECIDUOUS DRAWN BY: JEU - 75.00' 0/ PUBLIC STREET TREE - SMALL DESIGNED BY: QUALITY CHECK A�1� EASEMENT (DOC. 2258764) DATE: 22 JUNE 2007 JOB NO. B07-042 O _ _ r 2 li N� / _ _ REE LINE 4 a- _ -- - 4714 x ^7ti, cTv- TA N _ _ A `W�3 F ELLD OOK FB1 01157-61 - /,. -- 4 14 \ UNDERGROUND C BLE _ —� -e, ------ E UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC AREA WESF OF FENCE UNDER WETLAND CONSTRUCTION AT TIME OF SURVEY N - �`g V 'I �' AC V /'- �+ o- I. '� ' - �`\ n^ �7�� - a7Efi� � iI G GAS / > \ - / _ -- - syr S SANITARY SEWER N '. __/ 1`I Q r v 47 n !i /� I�, „ Ili _ -_ %�9 00( 50' �I ' SD STORM DRAIN 1 ; ' _ /1� �r_, _�_� -_---- - � 47rg - 720 -- < � _ Q Q R CN a>T V BB , - - --- - T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE Z �s DI I CH •�� \ '' �/ NL '� r � `17 7B �r6 J_ � Q,I` � � 7g� -� � ��J ¢ O � VALVE LINE 0 i \ — I , _ � r I � ;' � IIII'�I WATER WELL RIM T INV. OUf=11.46' Z 0 - 4718 -- 9 1 �, i /, 14 i .� 1 ' 24 ACCMP e� Q^.ter �•' /�— / �� N -1. 11 �.. � Q \ x _- `Joh y n i\ " I li J v GREEN POST —47po - - - - — - I it - - �� `� y, - 1 i'' u.. �, ' � /Q^ Ip � n j l I Z 4720 4720 -� S�D �> � O a 4720 47 I _ LU 4722 I A 4720 7 ' PV' Z. I W N --_---_ 22 N LL ''nn � O V 4722 - _ _ o� '' I r 1' -� \ _ _ � _ I a 4724 S J7 31: V. OUT- -71.43 RI IN _ °U0 L-- 472 --- ------' 2� \ ` \` \�A\`\\ \�\\ \4473 a3A/Ra736 �� ��\ - I / �� �at a A'24J O 1- ~ _ - 2 v / it n I i' 1 .P v �6 4> �� v l i s V W NOTE �4j24 _ ` 1,v, v�4V� 4j4474Z4_48a \ �'v�� - 91Z � tr i 24 a4,61A n7/ 1. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE 4726 Q d ' , r ii/ RI 4 - ` °> 36 _ _ % 2 --47 / `a' q>26\ - h j j n`O R TO INV. 01 SHOWN BASED ON MARKS PLACED BY ONE UTILITY F \ \` �s �\ \4— - �/- 2 - a72a s ^o' �,Lq, i. / 02$/ - ) Ali ��`J i �I , J W LOCATORS AND BY CONSTRUCTION AND/OR RECORD yrs - 2z N �� / I I. J Ln DRAWIHESELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE BOZEMAN CITY a'. - -- -- - I v �� �� tt� _ i3 tab 6 '' - �'�` ` " ��� 47 -- a7 ' I'� I � / 2. I. 1 ----- - -4726 _�' — 6 J / 2 e/ _ 4726 47F6 _ 2 4726 -= I - ,,---_- _ - ,,'_. � ,, � of � STREET ESMT DOC #2103146 MEADOWS VERTICAL SUBDIVISION.ATUM D ON BENCHMARKS IN BAXTER � � 1 I 1 _ _ - � -��� - -� � ! 1�'�I � �' � � i \- 4724-- i I W Nti N r� �� � - ' � AMBIGUOUS IN DOCUMENT � 3. NO DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FOR EASEMENTS FOR 45.00' ,Nati — -- -�`.- _ ��`ti ���� �^� I M BAXTER BORDER OR SPRING DITCH. WIDTHS AND ` Dp4128 z MAINTENANCE LOCATIONS ARE UNKNOWN. - `L,7D L� o- a N cI� / c-i 0 4. DOCUMENT #2014628 DESCRIBES A WATER AND �e _- - �' D �'HX15' HDPe��bB0gN UNRNj5WN ., 1D' HDPE-ORIGIN UNKNOWN U SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN THE OAK STREET EASEMENT. �__ G/ r ; I y _� . / 4 / LU -. 4728 ___' �1 i� 0..00 A r- 4726 - 4728 472 x_ 4728 cn / p9 _ --- I &4 \ I `\ 1 .. / 4730 __ _- �o/ -___ 4730___ 4728 - 4730.-J-'/ Ui ?(SA D) RIM TO INV. OUF=?(54ND) t x s .. ---____ ' - 4726 '1 - — - c- - _- 4732 -- vi _____' x s22B I / / r A97W i O. - ____�-� �� ( _--_ --_ - - -- 473U-- _ R TO _ 0.4732 '-'J �J,J '--- _- - J� - - - I i j A rj / - -_ 16' HDPE M INV _ %�- -SB' I RIM TO INV. OUT =?(SAND) Z az3a ' o _ 6- -- 4730 = __ �— - - -- . - — '� TO INV IN=-7.75' 4j3p_ �` - -_ 47W --- - - Z3o -n L - - - _ 47_3U - - _-__� RIM TO INV. INe =F+ _4 3 r 2 8 __ - '� �73p - - --- - 4732 - _ RIM TO INV. IN =7.76 �� 2 __ 9 �J' s- -a*' E'__ �'"E" �� -373-�- _ _ . __ _ _ X34 --�— -� / _ - L --g.59 (� 1 G GAE , _ T - J� -'l.Y - �ll� 4734RI TO NV OUT ' E - _ - - W - _ �. - --- - 47 _ � - 3 777 ___ RIM TO INV. IN=-6.62' -OA n Tq� _ -__ ____4734 _ -._ - . En 4734 N89°52'48"W 2636.23' CAD NO. 7042T1 .DWG 2 o SHEET OF S>M" e d i=i"a- Ntl�d 1131SVW � g nnuarr swnVNk�.LNUlAI ;Y L'JS30 31tlU A8 r,g V SNOIS�A33E!&3� oda �e jo s NIJVd -lVN0193U AlNn03 NlJL'VII E) 1g1 O F- - ry L;- D c � o 01 O O Z cn J — O ,yy Z U w w � p d rnW (nW � F w C<l !1 �O � Z-,�O�oO w w U O Y Z E-- CDCD Z cn�Q }��Q Q Q<Z Z J 0 --1 - c z > > mW�m cno�cjfa iom�Elf�QocnQYQ� Jo ��Ww'� (nom�� Zd �C�Um� Y >J mmzJ-rh of �z000z��o�owQ Q�> "�. Q � Q O pO— O—O J�cnW QY o Q7 w »zQ0OQ 0W�JcnQJQW0OW �W � —imO QQw' z OL'i f1 w U)cf) mm�AD<0wOz�Z� �pQ�z � 'V \ � €o� p� N� QUQa �Z—w 2'Zzr-=J� W(--) > OZ W W � ZZQOYOD��F—O� mWm ` OwZc/)DzEm +� * d oo�mcnom I Ch mcnOZOU—cn I �mW�wm I Umo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ic\2I � I1C\2 - ' +mow � _5 1'I w 3 z 'w :r ria `- _ ' 79 I _ 90M1SF 11W1RKNT ARROwTfDLT_ HYDRANT ARROW BOLT Ht01tANi ARROW BOL BYORANT ARROW BOLT BENCHMNtK El£VATION 4JOi 58 BENCHMARK ELEVATpN 4]02- � RENCHNPRK ELEVATION ]0411 BENCHMARK EEEVATHINOJ 58 - ; BOW BOLT EN I1MARK RELEVATION 4706.15 V . B — v � _..� DEMTON R D)BAXTER LANE oETE TON vorvo s 7 XfERLANE • sHEFc-a1.1a _,...�..,., ._� sHEtir_1. s _ — _ ------------ 1 su / �HNRANT ARROW BOLT W z STOR DRAIN J p STORM DRMN I 'Z \ BENCHMARK ELEYATNIN 4706.53 SHEET 33 AIER5 1 SHEET 1} SEWER SHEET 1 Q U \STREET) # SHEET 6 SRiEE1 S+EET Si EE1� E N ' SHEET 6 - z u SHEET 19 I A.WAY �5HEE1 I6 SHEET 3B�': +� A'�/11A�/ W SHEET 8� - -'.-"`a. " '• � T `._ • STORM 12 sTORM .U U z m SHEET 12 a AT#]A SNEEL 12 �$TORM DRNN _ - 1f 'A SHEET ,BLOCK3ALLEY f3LOCK4ALLY I�I CI o Yeo T �a SEETEE9 . SHEET J SHEETT B �I 3NEET] U-7 "5 t -oETEwilw1 0 B sTREEr. ��o rvuAx 'B STREET I 1 { - STREET TORM pRA1N BENCH ARROW BOLT � 0 100' 200 300 1 '', :'- '�SIffEE 18� , I t i BENCHMARK EE£vATgN 071238 E 1 S N S C A L E S } {{ >rm 0D—N By DO A XA ILD 7 t_ 0 om .. �_z -- — 3� DDALRY�HE6K Z I I 6.AUF..Y- 12 J N i.-..... 610] uI6(o , C STREET Nk —X-- .. ; C ATIR SHEET 9 LU ED �eENCCHHMARK ELEVATION 4718.36 = q " (n z � j3 z ED in 0 a A� U)a o a I r WATER [ W 1 (I s EEr �.. / i�I gLLJ Zz n VAQUERO PARK i HYDRANT ARROW BOLT m C BENCHMARK ELEVATION 4724.89 WR O SHEETE9 SHEET M E (y 20 II t I 1 NO.B516664-06.DWG SHEET $ OF Z5 80 SKEO August 10,2007 Project 07-2314 Mr. Kurt Ratz CTA Architects Engineers Via E-Mail: kurtr@ctagroup.com Dear Kurt: 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 Skgeotechnica Com MISSOULA 2611 Gabel Road 4041 Whippoorwill Drive P.O. Box 60190 P.O.Box 16123 Billings, MT 59108-0190 Missoula, MT 59808-6123 �P 406.652.3930 LP 406.721.3391 F 406.652.3944 F 406.72133 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 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 Groundwater Boring Surface Elevation Depth to 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 6.7' 4716.9* ST-5P 4721.4 5.7' 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% 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 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 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 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, 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 A �! r _ .1 raw r STREAMLINE DAYTIME SERVICE ROUTE w T►- �iMOFESON R O E N archifecture118 - g� NIAIRLE,TNC, ASSOCIATES y�,� ��/ Mfrgpigre-Qw.verl Cornpony A M YY YELLOWLINE • ' MEOW- JU • • • TOWN , • AVE PUMP E BAXTER LN SOC.SEC. w 4 MADISON AVE.I OG Nr W a z > z x GALLATIN CENTER BELGRADE RO ° i TSCHACHE BRIDGER PEAKS WAL-MART I NTFRSTAr, (STAPLES LOT) TOWN CENTER RSrATF9D (NORTH) DAY'S INN A CITY M Y BREW OAK ST •. C > CA�O RAWHIDE RIDGE RD a a a ASPEN MEADOWS a x QUALITY INN RENOVA w m r HEMLOCK ST y IN BACK LOT) a z a x FAIRGROUNDS p FRANK RID w ° O rc z x m z O 0 a ANNIE 3 g m +�^i' o > POST TOWN a SHEDy r x OFFICE PUMP oz ROSIEST i a BAXTER LN FOUR z DMAQ`o.REs x COTTONWOOD ST CORNERS DURSTON RD DURSTON RD DURSTON RD W PEACH ST. Q PEACH ST. M _ a w w 2 ARROWHEAD TOOLS ♦ H N z 0 � Q VILLARD ST G W Q VILLARD ST NO K A] BEALL ST U A aai r CASCADE S-CURVE >a DOWNTOWN 5 LAMMEST a HASTINGS BOZEMAN TRANSFER 3 0? GENA CIRCLE CENTER HIGH SCHOOL Dr BUS DEPOT a M �� b V A O♦ gggCOCK BABCOCK HUA T > BABCOCK z = PUBLIC a ° G OLIVE ST POST LIBRARY z OFFICE W o > a CURTISS ST cuRrlss sr w RAVALLI )• Q � u z p KOCH ST KOCH ST W a O THE GALLATIN >a J RIDGE STORY Sr = LAREDO OR VALLEY MALL n STORY ST• Y N r W j Q m aLAW&JUSTICE a o A FALLONST Gv 0 CENTER > ' a w L7 VALLEY COMMONS OR m r x x x r a RMSC �� �� • MENTAL COLLEGE ST HEALTH BOZEMAN Q ���e TECH PARK ? HARRISON ST DEACONESS CAMPUS Z KOONTZ TRAILER PARK m ¢ MSU HOSPITAL Q O2 x N CAMPUS CLEVELAND ST (PHARMACY aENTRANCE) V x m A GARFIELD MSU STRAND LEGENDr MSU UNION 0 HEDGES su W COMPLEX rA a> © o O STOP BOTH a DIRECTION -OFF ONLY BUS COMMON DIRECTIONS OVERLAP DROP g = STOP STOP ° • •• ROUTES INCLUDED S.PINECREST DT su � BLUELINE REDLINE s )vMSU-STRAND YELLOWLINE GREENLINE KAGY BLVD o- DOWNTOWN P '� o0 HUB GALLATIN UNION MUSEUM OF 11I.1 VALLEY MALL C ORANGELINE THE ROCKIES �o CHERRY More current schedule information and updates Pg.One: • Only Details 87 406OR 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 88 .1 Milo' �4r. r SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT CORRESPONDENCE MORRI�SON R O E N Q rct�- eCtur' �18 ON �1`� ,INC, ASSOCIATES _ pp �kc1� { ,IeE �}LE y�,� y,,, �A/ Mfrr{pfeyee-Qw.verl Cornpony A IVY YY From: Shockley,Sue To: scott(a)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 From: Fellowship Baptist Church To: scott(abarch118.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(a)arch118.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 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 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 cLim1[ m wffr1 92