The URL can be used to link to this page

H3. Junegrass Place Conditional Use PermitKALisPEii. Development Services Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/plannine REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: KCU-21-11 — Junegrass Place Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: December 6, 2021 BACKGROUND: This application is a request from GMD Development, LLC, for a conditional use permit to allow a multi -family residential development with up to 138 dwelling units on 5.82 acres located in an RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) zone. The development would include seven buildings with dwelling units as well as a community building, greenspace, playgrounds, and parking areas. This project was awarded $4.78 million as part of a competitive grant program involving federal housing tax credits administered by the Montana Board of Housing. It was one of four projects awarded funding out of eight applicants across the state. The property is located at 1079 North Meridian Road and can be described as Assessors Tracts 6BSAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 6BN (Parcel A of COS 15239), 6B (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 6BS (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on November 9, 2021, to consider the CUP request. Staff presented staff report KCU-21-11, providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact, and recommend to the Council that the request be granted subject to 16 listed conditions. Three public comment was received at the meeting. One comment was in support and the other two had concerns, including traffic. Two representatives of the applicant also spoke. The public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KCU-21-11 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be granted subject to the 16 conditions. Board discussion concluded that the request was appropriate, and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve a request from GMD Development, LLC, for Conditional Use Permit KCU-21-11, a conditional use permit for a multi -family residential development, subject to 16 conditions of approval within the RA-2 Zoning District, located at 1079 North Meridian Road. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Conditional Use Permit Letter November 9, 2021, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Staff Report Application Materials and Maps Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk Retum to: Kalispell City Clerk PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 City of Kalispell P. O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 GRANT OF CONDITIONAL USE APPLICANT: GMD Development, LLC 520 Pike Street Ste 101 Seattle, WA 98101 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessors Tracts 613SAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 6BN (Parcel A of COS 15239), 6B (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 613S (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana ZONE: RA-2, Residential Apartment/Office The applicant has applied to the City of Kalispell for a conditional use permit to allow a multi -family residential development with up to 138 units as a conditionally permitted use on property located at 1079 North Meridian Road within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) zone. The Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, after due and proper notice, on November 9, 2021, held a public hearing on the application, took public comment and recommended that the application be approved subject to sixteen (16) conditions. After reviewing the application, the record, the Kalispell Planning Department report, and after duly considering the matter, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, pursuant to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, hereby adopts Kalispell Planning Department Conditional Use Report #KCU-21- 11 as the Council's findings of fact, and issues and grants to the above -described real property a conditional use permit to allow a multi -family residential development with up to 138 units as a conditionally permitted use within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) zone, subject to the following conditions: That commencement of the approved activity must begin within 18 months from the date of authorization or that a continuous good faith effort is made to bring the project to completion. 2. That the development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted application and architectural/site plan drawings. 3. Architectural renderings are required to be submitted to the Kalispell Architectural Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. To ensure the traffic flow and access comply with Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, as well as compliance with other site development standards, the development shall receive Site Review Committee approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 5. To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan shall be submitted along with the building permit. The landscape plan shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted application and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance of the building permit. 6. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value as determined by the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director, or recreational amenities equivalent to the fair market value of 500 square feet of land shall be provided on -site. 7. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards. 8. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department with approval prior to construction. 9. Prior to construction, the developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval, as well as a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 10. The curb cuts for the existing driveways on Meridian Road shall be restored once removed. 11. The connection to Underhill Court shall be improved to a modified local street profile from the property line to connect with the northwest corner of the Underhill Court loop. 12. The terms, conditions, and recommendations of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits. A stop sign shall be placed at both intersections of Underhill Court and West Arizona Street. 13. Connections to both the existing sidewalk in Meridian and the new sidewalks as part of the Underhill extension would be required from the main entrances of the buildings. 14. Access to the property shall meet fire code as determined by the City of Kalispell Fire Chief. 15. The garbage enclosures shall be sized and placed in a location acceptable to the Kalispell Public Works Department. 16. Prior to construction, the Geotech report shall be updated to ensure that the excavation does not impact the highway above the site. Dated this 6th day of December, 2021. STATE OF MONTANA ss County of Flathead Mark Johnson Mayor On this day of , 2021 before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Mark Johnson, Mayor of the City of Kalispell, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Kalispell. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal, the day and year first above written. Notary Public, State of Montana KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2021 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning CALL Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham, Doug Kauffman, Rory Young, George Giavasis, Kurt Vomfell and Joshua Borgardt. Ronalee Skees was absent. PJ Sorensen and Jarod Nygren represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Giavasis moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 12, 2021, meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC None. KA-21-05 & KPUD-21-04 A request from Bish's RV for the annexation of two parcels located at BISH`S RV 3100 Highway 93 South containing approximately 8.36 acres of land with an initial zoning designation of B-2 (General Business). The proposal would add a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") overlay on the two parcels along with a third parcel containing approximately 12.58 acres that is already within the city limits with a B-2/PUD placeholder designation. The Bish's RV PUD as proposed would then be a Commercial PUD on a total of approximately 20.94 acres and would contemplate a renovation and expansion of an existing RV dealership. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-21-05 and KPUD-21-04. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-21-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be B-2 (General Business), with a PUD overlay. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KPUD-21-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the PUD for Bish's RV be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff recommended an amended condition #15 to state "All billboards existing on the property shall be removed prior to issuance of afty Wilditigemit one e]44a certificate of occupancy for the second phase of building construction (part of phase 1 of the overall site), which involves the demolition of a portion of the building and is anticipated in the summer of 2023. In no case shall they be removed later than July 1, 2025. Under the zoning ordinance, the billboards count as sign area towards the maximum allowable sign area and signage may be restricted in that manner on the property until the billboards are removed." BOARD DISCUSSION Giavasis and Young discussed approach off Hwy 93 and the entrance Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2021 Pagel corridor standards regarding landscaping and parking. PUBLIC HEARING Will Krahn (via zoom) — 745 S Main St — Cushing Terrell — consultant for the applicant — spoke about the approach of Hwy 93, existing infrastructure and the lease agreements on the billboards. MOTION — KA-21-05 Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-21-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be B-2 (General Business), with a PUD overlay. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION — KPUD-21-04 (AS Kauffman moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell AMENDED) Planning Board adopt staff report #KPUD-21-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the PUD for Bish's RV be approved subject to the 18 conditions, as amended, listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board agreed the amended condition #15 regarding the billboards makes sense. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. KCU-21-10 A request from Briggs Anderson for a conditional use permit to allow a THE HARPER multi -family residential development with up to 40 dwelling units on approximately 1.23 acres located in a B-2 (General Business) zone. The project would include covered parking, a fitness center, sidewalks, and an on -site trail system. The overall project would also include a new Jiffy Lube and incorporate the Mudman building into the site, which would be approximately 2.35 acres in total. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-21-10. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-21-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed potential site layout issues and concerns with traffic flow, parking etc. They expressed concerns with the incompleteness of the site plan. Staff reminded them typically at this stage the plan is more conceptual. PUBLIC HEARING Ron Albrecht — 1070 N Meridian — concerned with parking layout and snow removal. Briggs Anderson — 2829 Great Northern Loop, Missoula — applicant — spoke about traffic flow and parking and that he is willing to change the site plan if needed. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2021 Page 12 Mike Morgan — 123 N 2" d Street W, Missoula — consultant for the applicant — spoke about project and offered to answer any questions the board may have. Nathan Lucke — engineer for applicant — spoke about project and offered to answer any questions the board may have. Pam Rozell — co-owner of Mudman — likes the project and is working with owner on making his project fit. MOTION — KCU-21-10 Kauffman moved and Young seconded a motion that the Kalispell (ORIGINAL) Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-21-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed conditions in staff report and future traffic impact study. They understand the owner is willing to makes changes and feels confident that the conditions and standards are met. MOTION — KCU-21-10 Vomfell moved and Graham seconded a motion that the Kalispell City (AMEND CONDITION #14) Planning Board and Zoning Commission amend condition #14 in Staff Report #KCU-21-08 to state "Pedestrian accesses from the main entrances of the building to the public right-of-way shall be provided, including a connection of the eastern sidewalk along the main entrance to the building as well as a connection along the western property line, if required by the Site Development Review Committee. All sidewalks and trails should be concrete and meet city design standards." BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL (AMEND COND #14) Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL (ORIGINAL) Motion passed 5-1 on a roll call vote. Giavasis opposed. KCU-21-11 A request from GMD Development, LLC, for a conditional use permit to JUNEGRASS PLACE allow a multi -family residential development with up to 138 dwelling units on 5.82 acres located in an RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) zone. The development would include seven buildings with dwelling units as well as a community building, greenspace, playgrounds, and parking areas. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-21-11. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-21-11 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. PUBLIC COMMENT Ron Albrecht — 1070 N Meridian — Concerned with increased traffic on Meridian, he feels it is already unsafe. Pete Burkett — 376 W Washington — Is supportive of project. Steve D moke — 520 Pike St, Suite 101, Seattle — applicant — discussed Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2021 Page13 the project briefly and offered to answer any questions. Mike Brodie — 431 1st Ave W — consultant for applicant — discussed the engineering side of the project briefly and offered to answer any questions. Jill Hinrichs — 1080 N Meridian Rd (via zoom) — is concerned with increased traffic. MOTION Vomfell moved and Borgardt seconded a motion that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-21-11 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed the importance of this project and all agree it's a good infill project. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS Staff updated board on recent City Council approvals. NEW BUSINESS Staff updated board on the December 14t1i Planning Board Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:31pm. Chad Graham President APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kari Barnhart Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2021 Page 14 JUNEGRASS PLACE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — STAFF REPORT #KCU-21-11 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 3, 2021 This is a report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and Kalispell City Council regarding a request for a conditional use permit for a multi -family development. A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled before the Planning Board for November 9, 2021, beginning at 6:00 PM, in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This application is a request from GMD Development, LLC, for a conditional use permit to allow a multi -family residential development with up to 138 dwelling units on 5.82 acres located in an RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) zone. The development would include seven buildings with dwelling units as well as a community building, greenspace, playgrounds, and parking areas. This project was awarded $4.78 million as part of a competitive grant program involving federal housing tax credits administered by the Montana Board of Housing. It was one of four projects awarded funding out of eight applicants across the state. A: Applicant: GMD Development, LLC 520 Pike Street Ste 101 Seattle, WA 98101 B: Location: The property is located at 1079 North Meridian Road and can be described as Assessors Tracts 6BSAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 6BN (Parcel A of COS 15239), 6B (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 6BS (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. C: Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is mostly undeveloped, although there are two existing single-family residences on the western end of the property near North Meridian Road. The current RA-2 zoning for the property is a district intended to "provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map." Kalispell Zoning Exhibit -October 15, 2021 Junegrass Place; 1079 North Meridian Road; Assessors Tracts 613SAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 613N (Parcel A of COS 15239), 613 (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 613S (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana aw- Zonirg YDF.r- &1 IEYaBO PlILti6 9L9IE5 - e-x fzrau �mrss ni H-11PUU RA-1 I 1 H-1 r Subject Property - R-+5 RA-2 I n B4 nea of Land Ma.g—t rt HDtE Gam R P. Doe: 10.142721 -"�� Kalispell Development Services I AtCadastal data D�202♦121 LISPEU 0 5m 1! D: Size: The subject property is approximately 5.82 acres. E: Adjacent Zoning: North: RA-2/1-1 East: H-1/R-3 West: B-1/R-5/R-3 South: RA-2/R-3 F: Adjacent Land Uses: North: UPS; convenience store; office and retail East: Highway 93; Immanuel Lutheran; single-family West: Office and single-family South: Multi -family; single-family G: General Land Use Character: The general area is a mix of a wide range of different uses. To the north is an industrial zone which is the UPS location, including a recent significant expansion of the facility. The primary use to the south is Meridian Pointe Apartments, as well as a number of single-family residences on Underhill Court and West Arizona Street. Across Meridian Road are a mix of offices and single-family residences. 2 Kalispell Zoning Exhibit- October 15, 2021 Junegrass Place; 1079 North Meridian Road; Assessors Tracts 613SAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 6BN (Parcel A of COS 15239), 613 (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 613S (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana 3—th Policy - Zu _ HIP 0. clty FeslO Mal LVIW al URBAN MIXED USE URBAN RESIDENTIAL rr;r r nine oR r,ORTH st;a�e� URBAN RESIDENTIAL URBAN MIXED USE �IiliJl f x _ 5-202, ,,,, Kalispell Development Services A,TCaoasiral d . o.az., KALISPELL L• Utilities/Services: Sewer: Water: Refuse: Electricity: Gas: Telephone: Schools: Fire: Police: H: Relation to the Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Urban Mixed Use and Urban Residential. While rezoning the property is not necessary for this project, the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035, Chapter 4A on Housing, encourages a variety of residential development that provides housing for all sectors and income levels within the community. Additionally, infill development is encouraged to lessen impacts on sensitive lands and provides additional housing opportunities where services are available. City services including sewer, water and streets are in the vicinity and available to the subject property. City of Kalispell City of Kalispell City of Kalispell Flathead Electric Cooperative NorthWestern Energy CenturyTel School District #5, Russell Elementary/Glacier High School City of Kalispell City of Kalispell 3 1. `"ems�---u• � F •� l WATW MAIN = BLUE SUBJECT PROPERTY 1Cx f•.r � �• 1' IV'sj r no 10 r'. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST This application has been reviewed in accordance with the conditional use review criteria in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A conditional use permit may be granted only if the proposal, as submitted, conforms to all of the following general conditional use permit criteria, as well as to all other applicable criteria that may be requested. The requested conditional use permit would allow a multi -family residential development with up to 138 dwelling units. The development would include seven buildings with dwelling units as well as a community building, greenspace, playgrounds, and parking areas. The proposed layout is shown below. 4 } ��' oy l co:• r8�ry - Aw— J MUTE:s-s aTic uuuur:os lxisr wsnr as nti-p ns �♦ II■ EunoiN�wnfrsorn orexaous Na�suaeTm �I ILJI :4 IJ�II ILOTI LSl PPEUMI'n1iY PL.1T1'OR SPlG'iG 51TG . E _ , e � Pli] FF]FiIAIIOH. _ 1. Site Suitability: H. roN Homeward OEV ELO YN ENT Un - L`ourt Conceptual Site Plan Junegrass Place October 2021 a. Adequate Useable Space: The subject property is approximately 5.82 acres. The majority of the project site is relatively flat with no significant impediments. The eastern portion of the property is on a slope (20-25%) which does limit development to a degree. The two buildings on the eastern side of the property will require some excavation into the slope and are being located as far to the west as possible to minimize disturbance of the slope. A Geotech report was prepared by Alpine Geotechnical in October 2021 that details recommendations for the site, including foundation design. The report should be expanded to ensure that the excavation does not impact the highway above the site. Design standards in the zoning ordinance would apply setbacks and lot coverage standards, which can be met. Parking design will be reviewed as part of the building permit and site review process to ensure compliance with the zoning ordinance. b. Height, bulk and location of the building: The proposed multi -family project meets the required setbacks and is well under the maximum allowed lot coverage. The RA- 2 zone also limits the maximum height to 45 feet and the proposed buildings are about 41-43 feet tall. Verification of all these standards would occur during building permit review and site review. 5 C. Adequate Access: The primary access for the development will be North Meridian Road. The development also has a second access onto Underhill Court at the southeastern comer of the development. Both Meridian and Underhill are city streets which connect with the overall transportation system. A Traffic Impact Study ("TIS") was prepared as part of the project. The TIS recommended that the approximately 120-foot road extension from Underhill Court connecting with the development "be improved to facilitate two-way traffic per city standards." Additionally, "a stop sign should be installed by the developer on the southbound Underhill Court approach at West Arizona Street to provide positive intersection control and improve safety at this location." All recommendations in the TIS should be implemented. d. Environmental Constraints: There are no known environmental constraints, such as streams, floodplains, or wetlands on the area of the property proposed for development which could affect the proposed use. There are steep slopes on the eastern portion of the site that are noted above. 2. Appropriate Design: Parking Scheme/Loading Areas: The off-street parking requirement for multi -family dwellings is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit with one or more bedrooms. There are a total of 138 units proposed, which would equate to 207 required parking spaces. The project would include bike racks at each building, which would allow for a reduction of up to 5%, or 10 spaces. The site plan currently shows 191 spaces and the remaining difference will need to be addressed during the building and site review process. b. Lighting: Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance sets standards for all outdoor lighting on commercial or residential structures. Exterior lighting installed in conjunction with the development will be reviewed for compliance with the zoning ordinance during site development review. 2 C. Traffic Circulation: As noted above, the primary access will be from Meridian Road with a second access to Underhill Court. On -site traffic circulates through parking facilities that will need to be designed to meet city standards. Included within the design would be access for solid waste collection by the city as well as fire access. d. Open Space: There are no specific open space requirements, although open space is provided. Under the zoning ordinance, 500 square feet of land with recreational value per unit or the equivalent value in amenities shall be provided, which would be a total of 1.59 acres. The proposed layout includes BBQ/picnic areas for the residents as well as a clubhouse, playground, and game area. The specific plans for the recreational component will be reviewed during the building permit and site review processes. e. Fencing/Screening/Landscaping: The site plan provides landscaping in regard to parking, buffering, and open space. The application states that as the project is "developed further during design, other types of shrubs and grasses will be incorporated into the plan to provide a layered aspect of screening to aesthetically enhance the site perimeter as well as areas adjacent to the parking." To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a final landscape plan should be submitted along with the building permit which includes additional landscape buffering, particularly along the property line adjacent to single-family homes to the south. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department as well as the Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of the building permit. f. Si�gna _e: The development shall comply with all of the sign standards as set forth in Chapter 27.22 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 3. Availability of Public Services/Facilities: a. Police: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the project. b. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department. Fire hydrant(s) will be located as required by the Fire Chief. There is adequate access to the property from the public road system with the second access. The buildings will be constructed to meet current building and fire safety code standards. Station 61 is approximately 1.25 miles from the subject property giving good response time. C. Water: City water is available and would serve the property. There is an existing main at the southeast comer of the property within Underhill Court. This main is in the City's upper pressure zone and will need to loop to the upper pressure zone main located to the north of the site adjacent to Meridian Road. The main will extend through the development and tie back into the main near the Meridian entrance to UPS. The connection to Meridian should be made through the access approach. It will also need to tie into the main in Underhill Court. Each building will have a 7 domestic and a fire connection. The location of the hydrant(s) will be determined by the Fire Chief. d. Sewer: There is an existing sewer main at the southwest corner of the property as well as within Underhill Court. Based on site grading, both connections will be utilized to serve the property. Final design will need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and will need to take final grading into account. H Storm Water Drainage: Storm water runoff from the site shall be managed and constructed per the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. It is anticipated that the site will utilize on -site detention and treatment before discharging into the city storm water main in Meridian Road. Final design will be approved by Kalispell Public Works Department prior to building permit issuance. Prior to receiving a building permit, the developer will also need to submit a construction storm water management plan to the Public Works Department. This plan will need to show how storm water will be treated and where it will be directed during construction activities. Solid Waste: Solid waste pick-up will be provided by the City. The application indicates screened trash enclosures will be installed. Prior to building permit issuance, the number and location of these trash enclosures will need to be approved by Public Works. Streets: The d Underhill Court. evelopment would have access points at Meridian Road as well as Both Meridian and Underhill are existing public streets designed to travelling public. The connection to Meridian would be with a driveway connection perpendicular to the road. No improvements to Meridian Road would be necessary other than restoring the curb cuts once removed. The connection to Underhill would entail an improvement of an existing public right-of- way that contains an extension of about 120 feet from the northwest corner of Underhill proper. The right- of-way width, which is owned by the City of Kalispell, is 51 feet and a modified local street profile will be utilized to fit within the right-of-way with a reduced boulevard section (28 foot travel surface, curb/gutter, 4.5 foot boulevard, and 5 foot sidewalks). Per the TIS, a stop sign would also be added at the intersection of Underhill and West Arizona Street, and that requirement should apply to both intersections of the two streets. 0 4. 155 155 355 2 7 �3 8 D• CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY j hW ey G UNDERHILL CT 635 1 2 2 n �O L 6 �+ 4 3 h. Sidewalks: The zoning ordinance requires a pedestrian connection to the public sidewalk for multi -family dwellings. Connections to both the existing sidewalk in Meridian and the new sidewalks as part of the Underhill extension would be required. i. Schools: This site is within the boundaries of School District 95. An impact to the district may be anticipated from the proposed development depending on the demographics of the residents. On average, 69 students (K-12) would be anticipated from 138 dwelling units. j. Parks and Recreation: Section 27.34.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance requires 1.59 acres of land or the equivalent value of improvements as recreational amenities for the 138-unit development based on a ratio of 500 square feet of usable land per dwelling unit. The existing layout includes BBQ/picnic areas for the residents as well as a clubhouse, playground, and game area. The specific plans for the recreational component will be reviewed during the building permit and site review processes. Neighborhood impacts: a. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study ("TIS") was prepared and recommended a connection with Underhill Court and a stop sign at the intersection of Underhill Court and West Arizona Street. Those recommendations will be implemented as part of the development plan. b. Noise and Vibration: The development of the property as multi -family residential will create minimal additional noise and vibration. While any development of the property 9 from vacant land will increase the amount of noise, the expected level would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. C. Dust, Glare, and Heat: The use of the property as multi -family residential would not generate any unreasonable dust, glare, and heat other than during construction. d. Smoke, Fumes, Gas, or Odors: The development of the property as multi -family residential will create minimal additional smoke, fumes, gas and odors. Hours of Operation: As the property is proposed for residential use, there will be no hours of operation, although there will be people residing on the premises 24-hours a day. 5. Consideration of historical use patterns and recent changes: The general area is a mix of a wide range of different uses. To the north is an industrial zone which is the UPS location, including a recent significant expansion of the facility. The primary use to the south is Meridian Pointe Apartments, as well as a number of single-family residences on Underhill Court and West Arizona Street. Across Meridian Road are a mix of offices and single-family residences. The proposed development will be a compatible use within the area and will act as a buffer between the residential and commercial/industrial properties in the vicinity. 6. Effects on property values: No significant negative impacts on property values are anticipated as a result of the requested conditional use of the property. It can be assumed that property values will increase since city services to the property are being added and the property is currently undeveloped. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KCU-21-11 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL That commencement of the approved activity must begin within 18 months from the date of authorization or that a continuous good faith effort is made to bring the project to completion. 2. That the development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted application and architectural/site plan drawings. 3. Architectural renderings are required to be submitted to the Kalispell Architectural Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 10 4. To ensure the traffic flow and access comply with Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, as well as compliance with other site development standards, the development shall receive Site Review Committee approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 5. To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan shall be submitted along with the building permit. The landscape plan shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted application and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance of the building permit. 6. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value as determined by the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director, or recreational amenities equivalent to the fair market value of 500 square feet of land shall be provided on -site. 7. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards. 8. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department with approval prior to construction. 9. Prior to construction, the developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval, as well as a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 10. The curb cuts for the existing driveways on Meridian Road shall be restored once removed. 11. The connection to Underhill Court shall be improved to a modified local street profile from the property line to connect with the northwest corner of the Underhill Court loop. 12. The terms, conditions, and recommendations of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits. A stop sign shall be placed at both intersections of Underhill Court and West Arizona Street. 13. Connections to both the existing sidewalk in Meridian and the new sidewalks as part of the Underhill extension would be required from the main entrances of the buildings. 14. Access to the property shall meet fire code as determined by the City of Kalispell Fire Chief. 15. The garbage enclosures shall be sized and placed in a location acceptable to the Kalispell Public Works Department. 16. Prior to construction, the Geotech report shall be updated to ensure that the excavation does not impact the highway above the site. 11 Kalispell Zoning Exhibit- October 15, 2021 Junegrass Place; 1079 North Meridian Road; Assessors Tracts 613SAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 613N (Parcel A of COS 15239), 6B (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 613S (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana ® Subject Property Growth Policy - Zones Commercial Urban Mixed Use High Density Residential Urban Residential Public/Quasi Public, Openspace URBAN RESIDENTIAL THREE MILE DR NORTH URBAN MIXED USE URBAN RESIDENTIAL URBAN MIXED USE s�,NsFT etlo 00110 Date: 10-15-2021 �,1101 Kalispell Development Services MTCadastral data: 08202021 KALISPELL 0 462.5 925 Fe Junegrass Place; 1079 North Meridian Road; Assessors Tracts 613SAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 613N (Parcel A of COS 15239), 613 (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 613S (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Conway Dr ® Subject Property ;Jestv;LP, Mailing List Parcels 0 � Bountiful y C O E u - r W U A 4 93 as TF cr ti t Ct 0 0 0 0 W Arizona St olorado St n NORTH Date: 10-15-2021 CITY OF Kalispell Development Services MT Cadastral data: 08202021 KALISPELL o aso goo Feet Kalispell Zoning Exhibit- October 15, 2021 Junegrass Place; 1079 North Meridian Road; Assessors Tracts 613SAAA (Tract 1 of COS 11786), 613N (Parcel A of COS 15239), 613 (Parcel B of COS 15239), and 613S (no COS available) in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana 66 Ln ® Subject Property z z m Zoning NORTH B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS 5 - B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS S - H-1 HEALTH CARE v - H-1 HEALTH CARE 2 H -1 /P U D - I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RA-1 PUBLIC R-3 RESIDENTIAL R-4 RESIDENTIAL - R5 RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BOUNTIFUL DR - RA-1 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT - RA-2 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT/OFFICE 2 I-1 � H-1 A111 p AL _P J'f O� s� Subject Property -3 � � JIM RA-2 LIBERTY ST Im of Land Management, $ri, HERE, Garm n, IlN'C_REM•FNT1Q, ROAD -PARKING LOT Date: 10-14-2021Kalispell Development Services MtCadastral data: 08202021 KALISPELL 0 500 1,000 Feet Development Services CITY �F Department 201 1st Avenue East T19SP ELL PhoneKalispell, IKA(406) 758 7940 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Email: planningnkalispell.com Website: www.kalisr)ell.com Project Name Junegrass Place Property Address 1079 North Meridian Road NAME OF APPLICANT GMD Development, LLC Applicant Phone 203.745.3899 Applicant Address 520 Pike Street Suite 101 city, State, zip Seattle WA 98101 Applicant Email Address Steve@GMDDevelopment.com If not current owner, please attach a letter from the current owner authorizing the applicant to proceed with the application. OWNER OF RECORD GMD Development, LLC Owner Phone 203.745.3899 Owner Address 520 Pike Street Suite 101 City, State, zip Seattle WA 98101 Owner Email Address Steve@GMDDevelopment.com CONSULTANT (ARCHITECT/ENGINEER) WGM Group: Mike Brodie Phone 406.582.8988 Address 431 1 st Avenue W city, State, zip Kalispell, Montana 59901 Email Address mbrodie@wgmgroup.com POINT OF CONTACT FOR REVIEW COMMENTS Intrinsik Architecture: Peter Andrews Phone 406.582.8988 Address 106 East Babcock Street Suite 1 A city, State, zip Bozeman Montana 59715 Email Address Pandrews@intrinsikarchitecture.com List ALL owners (any individual or other entity with an ownership interest in the property): GMD Development and Homeword Inc. are partnering on this project. Homeword Inc. Contact Information 1535 Liberty Ln #116A, Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: 406 532-4663 Point of Contact: Julie Stiteler Julie homeword.or Legal Description (please provide a full legal description for the property and attach a copy of the most recent deed): Please see Appendix F for a copy of the deeds and legal description Sr Please initial here indicating that you have verified the description with the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder and that the description provided is in a form acceptable to record at their office. Development Services CI-i r car Department 201 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901KALISTELL Phone (406) 758-7940 1. Zoning District and Zoning Classification in which use is propsed: 2. Attach a site plan of the affected lot which identifies the following items: a. Vicinity map and surrounding land uses b. Dimensions and shape of lot c. Topographic features of lot d. Size(s) and location(s) of existing buildings e. Size(s) and location(s) of proposed buildings f. Existing use(s) of structures and open areas g. Proposed use(s) of structures and open areas See Application h. Existing and proposed landscaping, screening, fencing, open space & Narrative for the signage location of these i. Exisiting and proposed parking, loading, lighting & traffic circulation items j. Exisiting and proposed garbage collection, streets & utilities k. Floodplain if applicable I. Adjacent sidewalks & bike trails 3. Attach Building Elevations - (drawing of any proposed building and/or addition showing views from north, south, east and west ) 4. On a separate sheet of paper, discuss the following topics relative to the proposed use (please elaborate beyond referencing materials listed above): a. Traffic flow and control b. Access to and circulation within the property c. Off-street parking and loading d. Refuse/garbage collection and service areas e. Utilities (water, sewer, electric, etc.) f. Screening and buffering g. Signs, yards and other opens spaces See Application Height, bulk and location of structures h. Hei g Narrative for the i. Location of proposed open space uses location of these j. Hours and manner of operation items k. Noise, light, dust, odors, fumes, vibration, glare and heat I. Storm drainage m. Fire/Police 5. Attach supplemental information for proposed uses that have additional requirements (consult Planner) I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this application be incorrect or untrue, I understand that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the Kalispell City staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. Steve z4 �o/( Applicant Signature Date Oct 4, 2021 Development Services CF1 Y Department IAALISPELL Phone 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone (406) 758-7940 APPLICATION PROCESS (application must be received and accepted by the Kalispell Planning Department 35 days prior to the Planning Board Hearing) A pre -application meeting with a member of the planning staff is required. Application Contents: 1. Completed application form & attachments 2. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing the location and boundaries of the property. *Note - verify with the Flathead County Clerk & Recorder that the legal description submitted is accurate and recordable. They can be reached at (406) 758-5526. 3. Electronic copy of the application materials submitted. Either copied onto a disk or emailed to planning@kalispell.com (Please note the maximum file size to email is 20MB) 4. Application fee based on the schedule below, made payable to the City of Kalispell: Single Family (10 or fewer trips per day) Minor Residential $250 (2-4 units or 11-49 trips per day) $300 + $25/unit or every 10 trips Major Residential (5 or more units or 50+ trips per day) $350 + $50/unit or every 10 trips Churches, schools, public/ quasi -pubic uses $350 Commercial, industrial, $400 + $50/acre medical, golf courses, etc or unit or $.05/sf of leased space over 5,000 sq ft whichever is greater 4 ;,2 f•� � 4 f JUNEGRASS PLA Table of Contents A. Concept Application Form & Checklist B. Project Team C. Narrative I. Project Overview II. Site Conditions D. Appendices Appendix A.1: Vicinity Map Appendix A.2: Existing Zoning Map Appendix B: Site Constraints Appendix C: Conceptual Green Plan Appendix D: Conceptual Renderings Appendix E: Survey Appendix F: Copy of Deeds Appendix G: Traffic Study Appendix H: Pedestrian Access Exhibit Appendix I: Mountain Climber Exhibit Appendix J: Fire Access Exhibit Plan sets Architecture: Site Plan 12 Unit Buildings 24 Unit Building Community Building October 2021 2 Civil: Existing Conditions Grading Water Sewer Stormwater Landscape October 2021 A. Application Forms & Fees Attached please find the Conditional Use Permit Application Checklist for the Junegrass Place application. The fee is estimated below. COMPONENT Base Fee Scaled Fee per Unit FEE QUANTITY TOTAL $350.00 $350.00 $50.00 138 $6,900.00 TOTAL $ 7,250.00 October 2021 4 B. Project Team APPLICANTS PROJECT CONSULTANTS Planning & Architecture Civil Engineering GMD Development, LLC 520 Pike Street, Suite 101 Seattle WA 98101 P. 206.745.3899 Homeword, Inc. 1535 Liberty Ln #116A, Missoula, MT 59808 P. 406.532.4663 Intrinsik Architecture, Inc. Attn: Peter Andrews 111 N. Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 p. 406.582.8988 WGM Group Attn: Mike Brodie 431 1st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 p. 406.756.4848 October 2021 5 C. Project Narrative I. Project Overview The Junegrass Place is envisioned as a multihousehold workforce housing community. The overall design intent seeks to create a mix of affordable rental options within a quality walkable neighborhood that fosters a sense of community around shared recreations space and in proximity to jobs and services. The proposed project includes eight (8) buildings situated on the 5.86 acre site, which lies within the RA-2 zoning district. This project has numerous constraints due to its unique shape, proximity to existing roadways, and site topography. The proposed project will capitalize on these challenges and use the site's attributes to create a vibrant, diverse, and affordable neighborhood. { � (24) G[ B ILDI G O (24) C- _ L J 0 j (24 (1z) C d 1`Lr „.._ Liberty Street III. Site Conditions Surrounding land uses k7 Underhill Court The subject property is located in the RA-2 Zoning district and is surrounded on three sides by this zoning district. To the west is a row of R-5 parcels and currently there is a single family housing neighborhood that has been constructed in this area. To the south of this property there is an existing multifamily housing development as well as a single family home neighborhood. To the north is the UPS facility, which is currently under construction. To the east, the project lot is bordered by Sunset Boulevard. Dimensions and Shape of Lot October 2021 The subject site is a combination of four (4) lots that total 5.82 Acres. Please see Civil Survey (Appendix E) for all existing lot dimensions. Topographic Features There is a signification grade change starting to the east at Sunset Boulevard. The site slopes to the west away from Sunset Boulevard. To mitigate for this site constrain we are proposing to build a 20-unit building and a 10unit building into the hill. Building these buildings into the hill allows us to share the cost of a retaining wall with livable space. These 20 and 10 unit buildings are variations of the same 24 and 12 unit building located onsite with the units on the upside of the hill being eliminated. Please see the Civil site plan and architectural site plan showing how we have chosen to mitigate the steep topography. Size and Location of Existing Buildings There are currently two single family homes both on separate lots, and each home has several outbuildings. Both homes and all out buildings will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Please see the Civil Survey (Appendix E) for more information. Proposed Uses of Structures and Open Areas There are eight (8) total buildings proposed to be constructed on this site. There are four (4) 24- unit buildings and one (1) 12-unit buildings. Additionally, there is a one (1) 20-unit building and one (1) 10-unit building. The 20-unit building and the 10-unit building, architecturally, are the same buildings as a 24-unit and 12-unit buildings but they are built into the hill causing a loss of the ground floor units on the uphill side of the building. Furthermore, a community building is October 2021 planned for this site that will house the leasing offices as well as provide a gathering space for residents use. The project team is also looking to incorporate a play area on the northeast side of the site adjacent to the community building. In our neighborhood outreach, conducted on July 22, public comments received indicated that green space and playgrounds were an important component to try and incorporate into our design. The project team has taken these comments into consideration for the site design. Please see the landscaping plan for more detail on the proposed programing of the open spaces. Existing and Proposed Parking Loading Both existing homes have garages and additional off street parking spaces. Please refer to the Civil Survey (Appendix E) documenting the existing conditions. Our project proposes to distribute parking equally throughout the site allowing the residents the opportunity to park close to their home. Please refer to the access and circulation section below for more information on the proposed parking locations. Existing and Proposed Garbage Collection, Street & Utilities Both existing homes have a drive access onto Meridian Road. Our proposal is to consolidate those access into one access that will be located near our southern property line. Please see our Architectural Site Plan for more detail on the proposed accesses. Both homes appear to be connected to all utilities as shown in the civil survey. All of our proposed buildings will be connected to the necessary utilities. Please see the utilities section below for more information on the proposed utility layouts. It is unclear how the current existing homes are serviced by garbage collection but several locations have been selected on the proposed layout for garbage pickup while it is yet to be determined if the means will be front loaded dumpsters or side load cans. Please refer to the section below for more detail about the proposed garbage locations. Adjacent sidewalks & Bike Trails Please see Pedestrian Access Exhibit (Appendix H) showing all adjacent sidewalks, bike trails, multiuse paths and signalized crossings in the vicinity to our proposed neighborhood. Traffic Flow and Control The site is bordered on the west by Meridian Road, and on the east by US-93. There is no access to US-93 directly to the site, but it can be accessed via Underhill Court and Arizona Street. The primary access point of the site will be Meridian Road where Northbound traffic has an easy right turn out of the development and southbound traffic can pull out into the existing center turn lane on Meridian. This is proposed as a stop -controlled intersection. Traffic leaving via Underhill Court can make a left onto US-93 (northbound) via Arizona Street or drive through the neighborhoods to use the signalized intersection at Wyoming Street and US-93. Widening October 2021 Looking East off Meridian Road. Underhill Court is being recommended based on the increase in traffic and its anticipated use. The full traffic impact study has been included along with recommendations in Appendix G. Generally, the site is well served by sidewalks and the City's greater multi use path system. Based on Zillow Walkability Scores, it is estimated to be approximately a 50, defined as "somewhat walkable." There is a grocery store (Albertson's) within 3/ miles from the property as well as a convenience store approximately 200 ft north of the site. Both can be accessed via sidewalks and signal controlled intersections or via bike lane on Meridian Road. Bikers have quick access to bike lanes along Meridian Road which can take them north to Logan Health or FVCC or South to the Parkline Trail and greater multi use path system. This multi -use path system can also be accessed via Three Mile Drive by bike lane to sidewalk/multiuse path. Additionally, the site is within the service area for the "Mountain Climber" bus service. This bus system currently operates as an on -demand service (like a shared uber ride) between the hours of 7am to 6pm with passes available or single fares. Exhibits depicting both Mountain Climber Service Area (Appendix 1) and Pedestrian Network (Appendix H) are included. Access and Circulation Interior to the site, a main 24-foot wide minimum access road has been proposed from Meridian Road through to Underhill Court. Several parking access roads are provided separately and separated via landscape islands all of which are also a minimum 24-foot wide. The main road has been sized to accommodate the City of Kalispell's ladder fire truck with a 22-foot wheel base October 2021 and an outer swing radius of 48 feet. The preliminary engineering plans along with an exhibit showing the truck's movements through the site has been included in Appendix X3. All buildings are accessible within 100 ft of fire truck access and the trucks can enter or leave from either entrance on the site. Pedestrian access interior to the site is provided by seven -foot -wide sidewalks adjacent to the buildings and five-foot sidewalks in other locations of the property. When fully designed, these will be ADA accessible to allow residents to reach recreational opportunities within the development, garbage locations, and mailboxes. These facilities are included with the plans in Appendix H and I. Off-street Parking & Loading The proposed apartment layout consists of eight buildings with 138 units with 191 stalls being provided. Per city of Kalispell standards, the proposed number of units has a parking requirement of 207 parking stalls (1.5 per unit). Given site constraints, specifically a steep (20-25%) hillside on the eastern portion of the property, two reductions are being requested for parking. The first is a 5% reduction for providing bike racks, which would reduce the site requirements to 197 stalls. Bike racks will be provided at each building to achieve this reduction All proposed parking is accessed via 24-foot wide private access roads and are 20' x 9' stalls. In areas where proposed stalls are adjacent to buildings and seven -foot sidewalks, the stalls are proposed as 18' x 9' considering the curb as a wheel stop with a two foot front overhang. Each building will have a minimum of one ADA stall and a van stall is proposed at the clubhouse (8 stalls total) which exceeds ADA Standards. Refuse/Garbage Collection and Service Areas - City of Kalispell or Evergreen Disposal Several sites have been located on the proposed layout for garbage pickup through a combination of front loaded dumpsters and side load cans. Given the density and site constraints, multiple pickups a week will be required. Discussions with both City of Kalispell Public works and Evergreen disposal have taken place, and the site is within both of their service areas, and both provide multiple pickup options. Utilities Water — City of Kalispell The property will be served with city of Kalispell water. There is an existing main at the southeast corner of the property at the current termination of Underhill court. This main is in the upper pressure zone and based on discussions with City of Kalispell will need to loop to the upper pressure zone main located just north of the site adjacent to meridian road. The water will be extended through the development and tied back into the main near the Meridian entrance of the UPS facility. Each building will have a domestic connection and a fire connection. A preliminary water layout has been included in the Civil Plan Set. October 2021 10 Sewer — City of Kalispell There is an existing 8" City of Kalispell sewer main stubbed to the property in the southwest corner and another where the site is accessed via Underhill Court. Given the site's grade, the gravity sewer system will be divided in two separate gravity lines that will flow either toward the main at Underhill or to the main adjacent to Meridian. Dry Utilities — Multiple Providers Power, gas, and communication are all available at the property adjacent to Meridian Road within the existing 10 foot utility easement. Gas is also located at Underhill Court allowing for a looped service. the following service providers: Power: Flathead Electric Co -Op Gas: Northwestern Energy Communications: Charter Communications Screen and Buffering The screening and buffering are provided by a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees to provide seasonal interest and are shown on the preliminary landscape plan included in the Civil Plan Set Sheet 6. As this is developed further during design, other types of shrubs and grasses will be incorporated into the plan to provide a layered aspect of screening to aesthetically enhance the site perimeter as well as areas adjacent to the parking. Signs, Yards & Other Open Spaces There are currently no planned project signs. In the event a project sign is desired we understand that a sign permit application and review will be required. There are three main areas designated as active open space. Two areas between the 24-unit buildings on the south which will be set up as flex space with Picnic/barbeque areas to allow for small quiet gatherings or yard type activities. Each of these locations are approximately 2,500 square feet (0.05 acres). The third area is located centrally to the site on the north side of the property which includes a clubhouse a playground and a game area. This third area is approximately 13,000 square feet (0.30 acres). All open space areas can be accessed via sidewalks and will be ADA accessible (0.40 acres total active open space). Passive open space is included throughout the site as well, primarily located on the hillside at the east end of the property. This area isn't really usable due to the slope but will remain undeveloped and is approximately 40,000 square feet (0.91 acres). October 2021 11 Open space areas are shown on the Civil Plan Set Sheet 6. Height, Bulk and Location of Structures There are 5 different building types proposed on this site. There are four (4) 24-unit buildings that are a mix of 12 one -bedrooms, 12 two -bedrooms, and 6 three -bedrooms. These structures will stand 43' tall (3 stories) and be approximately 25,800 gross square feet. There are two (2) 12- unit buildings that contain a mix of 6 one -bedrooms, and 6 two -bedrooms. Theses structures will stand 41' (3 stories) and will be approximately 12,000 gross square feet. The 20-unit building be a mix of 10 one -bedrooms, 12 two -bedrooms and 4 three -bedrooms. These structures will stand 43' tall (3 stories) and be approximately 21,286 gross square feet. The 10-unit building contain a mix of 5 one -bedrooms, and 5 two -bedrooms. Theses structures will stand 41' (3 stories) and will be approximately 10,211 gross square feet. The community building will be located in the center of the site and will house three rental offices as well as a community gathering space. In total this structure will be approximately 1,800 square feet and will be 24' tall. Location of Proposed Open Space Uses Open space is proposed in between each building and a larger community open space is proposed on the north side of the site. Please see the section "Signs, Yards & Other Open Spaces" above for a more detailed description of the open space. Additionally, please see the Landscape plan located in the Civil Plan Set, Sheet 6. Hours of operation The hours of operation for the leasing office is yet to be determined. The other residential uses will not have hours of operation. Noise, Light, Dust, Odors, Fumes, Vibration, Glare and Heat There is no anticipated negative impact by this project on noise, light, dust, odors, fumes, vibration, glare and heat beyond what is typical for a residential neighborhood. Storm Drainage - City of Kalispell/Private The existing site has a drain system that ties into Meridian Road's trunkline collection system located at a low-lying area on the west edge of the site. This trunkline travels south on Meridian before turning west and discharging into Spring Creek. The site will utilize this connection point and reduce runoff flows via two separate but connected detention systems. Runoff from the buildings and parking from the upper portions of the site will be collected and conveyed to an underground detention system located somewhat central to the site. This will require a water quality unit in advance of the storage system and an outlet control structure. From here it will discharge to the second collection system which will collect building and parking runoff at the lower parts of the site. A second water quality structure will be placed upstream of the four -foot - deep pond, and a second flow control structure will be placed downstream of the pond before October 2021 12 discharging to the existing 36" RCP conveyance system. All flows leaving the site will be detained to their existing condition per City of Kalispell Design and Construction Standards. Fire/Police Police protection is intended to be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. Fire protection is intended to be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. There is proper ingress and egress for the site. Finally all the residential buildings will be serviced with adequate fire suppression systems. The project site lies within the existing service boundaries for these City services. Additional Supplements as Required by the Planning Department No supplements were requested by the Planning Department during or in follow up to the Pre - Application Meeting. October 2021 13 October 2021 14 October 2021 15 APPENDICES k ;r' \ i 10 0 Gc s Project Site �sOe Liberty Street ,7 �Ui'i erhill Court West Colorado Street _ _. _ a E "mu EXISTING ZONING - JUNEGRASS PLACE -three773e Drive i f Liberty Street �` ._,. - �� UrSderhill Court 114 West Colorado Street MU TY (24) B ILDI G 0 ,.. (24) i 3 o i - % t Underhill 'Court NOTE: ��' Conceptual Site Plan N OUETOTHESCHTSANDDIM DIMENSIONS ARE inGr nsiK H. BUILDING LAYOUTS ANDDIMELAT FOR ARE SUBJECT Junegrass Place CHANGE. SEE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPECIFIC SITE AND LOT INFORMATION. ARCHITECTURE October 2021 FiONIEWOfCi DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX D -SITE RENDERING JUNEGRASS PLACE -------------- ED CD 890 7- ED ED E) ED ED v, "0 09 ED ED - ------- --- ----- oy LEGEND z 11-- as N.IEI —El IONIIIII I L-1.11 I—L 1 IE IEE SURVEY CONTROL SURVEY CONTROL o - - - - - - - - - E IINIE IL CP# NO -ITING ITION DII-IPTION CP# N-TIING 111ING ILI-TIIION ESCRIIPTIIO EEwErea 11--IN Nl.Ll E —LE 11 11 L�NE —1-1 ELEIIII 11— Nl.Ll "IE'l— NIE—L ILI—IT M 'ELE—NE -El —El LINE �oMreoEI.Nl unTa NI —I 20ge.l D38O4 FPage:gY oif-p3 Debbde Memon, Flathead County MT by AW 211174TT- 9 -40 This Document Prepared By: Fidelity National Title Company of Flathead Valley, LLC 284 Flathead Avenue Ste 101 Whitefish, MT 59937 After Recording Return To: Gregory M. Dunfield GMD Development, LLC 520 Pike Street Ste 1010 Seattle, WA 98101 Order No.: FT1585-201695-TD Recorded by Fide!4 Modal Me FNT I S�R5`"2X21 tf f'S For Value Received Calaway Brothers, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, the grantor(s), do(es) hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto GMD Development, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, of 520 Pike Street Ste 1010, Seattle, WA 98101, the grantee(s), the following described premises, in Flathead County, Montana, to wit: TRACT 1: Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 11786, a tract of land situated, lying and being in Government Lot 1, Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, F.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. TRACT 2: Parcel A of Certificate of Survey No. 15239, that portion of Government Lot 1, Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, F.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. TRACT 3: Parcel B. of Certificate of Survey No, 15239, that portion of Government Lot 1, Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the Grantee and to the heirs and assigns forever, subject, however, to: A. All reservations and exceptions of record and in patents from the United States or the State of Montana; B. All existing easements and rights of way of record, building, use zoning, sanitary and environmental restrictions; C. Taxes and assessments for the year 2021 and subsequent years; D. All prior conveyances, leases or transfers of any interest in minerals, including oil, gas and other hydrocarbons; Except with reference to items referred to in paragraphs above, this Deed is given with the usual covenants expressed in §30-11-110, Montana Code Annotated. This conveyance is made and accepted upon the express agreement that the consideration heretofore paid constitutes an adequate and full consideration in money or moneys worth. Deed (warranty) Printed: 01.26.21 Q 01:05 PM by TO MTDW05.dQe 1 Update& 07.15.11) Page 1 MT-r=T-VLAT-03585.350300-FT1585-20t595 F FAFA � N W BARBARIl � HAI� 9 II III page:201E3 9 Page: 2 of 3 Fees:$21.00 2/1/2021 2-49 PM WARRANTY DEED (continued) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this document on the date(s) set forth below. Calaway Brothers>„LLC BY: St ve Cala ay KQem imotthy C.iaw y Member �y BY: dfffey Ca ai yay M BY: Pats Calaw Member BY: C_ r alaway Member fleod (Wamanty) Printed: 01.26.21 @ 01'06 Pm by TD MTDOGO5.doc! Updated: 07.15.19 Page Vage)) MT-Fr-rrrLAT-04585.3563OG-FT1585.241695 I�I��III�1111��I1��1��1f 2021000113804 Page: 3 of 3 reea $21.00 2/1/2021 2.49 PR WARRANTY DEED (continued) State of County of This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,�-7f' �GG�1GI/iYU 20� by Steve Calaway an a#sy Calaway, as Members of Calaway Brothers, LLC. / Notary Public for the StM6of Residing at coeti of 1 s My Commission Expires:P,,t%C - s*3•e of vjoh try CC m \7. 595>45 {SEAL} _ js`-<;"YCcm;nissar.=xn esvr. sea � s zoz State of County of w This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ 2021 by Timothy Calaway, MemjXr of Calaway Brothers, LLC. Notary Public fqr thesUM&Ipf Residing at My Commission Expires: "^ ATE HIDALGO (SEAL) Qa�� rule NOTARY PUBLIC for the = o State of Montana ' °SEAL Residing at Whitefish, Montana My Commission Expires �or�nH February 22, 2022 State of kNC— County of S Lw �r-4�aau, This instrument was acknowledged before me on &1N- 2 20 �,- by Geoffrey Calaway and Lisa�lawAy, as. Members of Calaway Brothers, LLC. Notary Public for Xe State'bf Q Residing at My Commission Expires: NATE HIDALGO (SEAL) 4le NOTARY PUBLIC for the z o e State of Montana SAt * Residing At Whitefish, Montana My Commission Expires February 22, 2022 Dead (warranty) P�n3ed: 01,28.21 Q 01:06 PM by TD MMWD5.doc I Updated: 07.15.18 Page ttPagej} MT-PT-PLAT-01585.354300-Fr1585-201695 IIIIIIIIIIIIII11111NI1111111111 2021aaese727 tea: T oFd Debbie Pierson, Flathead County 14T by AW 2/26JAWAI IM This Document Pfepared By. Fidelity National Title Company of Fathead Valley, LI-C 284 Flathead Avenue Ste 101 Whitefish, MT 59937 After Recording Return To. Gregory M. Dunfield GMD Development lLC, a Washington limited liability company 721 161h Ave East Seattle, WA 96112 Order No.: FT1585-210294-TD WARRANTY DEED �'i�g '&i :i1i';a 4d°„ o For Valua Received Russell Alan McKinley and Robert James McKinley, as Trustee of the Catharine R. McKinley Irrevocable Living Trust dated February 10, 1995, the grantor(s), da(es) hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto GMO Development LLC, a Washington limited liability company, of 721 18th Ave East, Seattle, WA 88112, the grantes(s), the following described premises, In Flathead County, Montana, to wit: A tract in Government Lot One (1) of Section Seven (7) Township Twentyeight (28) North, Range Twentyone West, M.P.M., Flathead County, Montana, described as follows: Beginning at a point 301 feet South of the North fine of said Lot One (1) and which point is 30 feet East of the West line of said Lot One (1); thence from this true point of beginning Easterly and on a line parallel with the North Line of said Lot One (1), 383 foot; thence Southerly at a right angle, 127A feet; thence Westerly at a right angle, 363 feet; thence Northerly 127.4 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning. Excepting Therefrom that portion conveyed to State of Montana Department of Transportation for roadway purposes In Bargain and Sale Deed recorded June 8, 2001 as Document No. 2001 -1 57�M40, and recorded June 6, 2001 as Document No. 2W1-157-09260, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the Grantee and to the heirs and assigns forever, subject however, to: A. AN raservatiens and exceptions of record and In patents from the United States or the State of Montana; B, All existing easements and rights of way of record, building, use zoning, sanitary and environmental restrloflons; C. Taxes and assessments for the year 2021 and subsequent years; D. All prior conveyances, leases or transfers of any Interest In minerals, including oil, gas and other hydrocarbons; Except with reference to items referred to In paragraphs above, this Deed Is given with the usual covenants expressed in §30-11-110, Montana Code Annotated. This conveyance is made and accepted upon the express agreement that the consideration heretofore paid constitutes an adequate and full consideration in money or moneys worth. boeaeI e—ly] PfliW: 6226.;1@0849AMby TD MT0DD0&d.PUpamW: 07.15,ta Pagel MTST-FLAT-01588.350MP7T1r:e6�-2102m 202100006727 Page: 2 of 4 Fees: $28.00 2/26/2021 2:I7fHi WARRANTY DEED (continued) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this document on the date(F) set forth below. Russell Alan M IGnley and Robert James t y. as Trustee of the Catherine R. McKinley Irrevocable Living Trustled 1= ruary 15 BY• ,�� ! vsseil Alan' ciClnSey Successor Co- brus#ee BY: _ Robert James McKinley Successor Co -Trustee State of Colmiyofmm,f ---- LISA S. JC HES s. 16 N AX NOTARY PUIBLIC for the Ir SERI sut0 0f Morita Y$6:sEd$Fr @t �r5@ESpOf�E.$�f4t�8l� ��FQF ] PAY Icy Commission EXPIMS October 06, 2024 This instrument was acknowledged before me on - 1 r,-.6 Pr 24 , 7.f] 2 + by Russell Alan Mc#Gnley, as Successor Ca -Trustee of the Catherine R. A6c Wey lrrtavonNe Living Trust dated February 1fl,1995. Notary ftblic for the 9fate . _.� Residing at My Commission Expires: w {SEAT} State of County of This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2Q by Robert James McKinley, as Successor Co- Trustee of the Catherine R. McKinley irrevocable Living Trust dated February 1Q,1$85. Notary Pubic for 0 a State of Wry Residing at My Commission Expires: (SEAL) D-d(W--Alh Pvfttod: Q225.230 MAO AM by TU lJrlD�l1�Gl4pdalod: fl7.45.45 �{[Fags}) A!T-rT-SLlIT�9S5B5.350396•fi 45&5.2T02s1A f N[IIIINN INNNI 11 IINIININIINIIIINN 2a21te3Of427 Page: 3 of A Fees: $28-ee 2/26/2021 2.17 PM WARRANTY REED (confinuod) IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the undefslgned have executed this document on the dates} set forth below, Russell Alan McKinley, and Robert ,lames McKinley, as Trustee of the Catherine R. MolGnley Irrevocable Living Trust dated February 10, 1995 BY: Russell Alan McKinley $UCCe o. Co-Tru fee 6Y:✓ 4 RoW'James VidKinley Successor Co -Trustee State of _ County of This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20_ by Russell Akan McKirliey, as Successor Co -Trustee of the Catherine R. McKinley Irrevocable Living Trust dated February 10, .1995. Notary Public for the State of Residing at My Commisson Exptros: (SEAL) State of County of This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20_ by Robert James McKinley, as Successor Co- Trustea of the Cathedne R Kinley Irrevocable Living Trust dated February 10, 1995. Notary public for the State of Residing at My Commission Expiras: (SEAL) SEE UNFASTENED � Q CALIFORNIA COMPL ANT CIRTIFIGA,TE Osed(WwmW Pd-tW GZ25.210 oo:49 AM byT6 MMDM5Ax1Updeled: 07.16.19 .Page Sffapeb MT-FT-rL4T-015M.9603oo-FYts%2iom 1111111111 pill go pillillill 11111111111 INS Pa"2 i4:*1427 Page Fees: $28.00 2/26/2021 2-.17 PM Civic Code 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Santa Cruz On Februa 25 2021. before me, Samuel Levine. a Notary Public personally appeared Robert James McKinley who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) isl a subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sve/tKey executed the same in hislh&lt eir authorized capacity (ies), and that by hislhetrlt leir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SAA4lFEL LEYINE Notary Public • caifioruia isame Cruz county commission # 2259293 My cam rn, Exp$res Act 2(3. 2022 OPTIONAL INFORMATION BELOW DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Signature Samuel Levine 831-325-1710 Title or Type of Document; D EI:�b Number of Pages : T /Jt) or Specific Page Number . _.._ Name of the Notary: Samuel Levine County of notary's principal place: of business : Santa Cruz Notary's Phone number: 831-325-1710 Notary's registration number: 2259293 Commission expiration date: October 20 2022 Commencing 10/211201a • �;A RK DANIEL,. = BANCALE •1iAAL'�'' ' PTOE #4336 WG MGROUP Traffic Impact Study Junegrass Apartments Kalispell, MT 9.9.2021 Project No: 21-06-01 1111 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802 1 OFFICE 406.728.4611 1 EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com REPORT DATE: 9.9.2021 AUTHOR: Mark Bancale, P.E., PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer WGM Group, Inc. "A u 4Junegrass Apartments v Traffic Impact Study I CONTENTS Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 ExistingTraffic Volumes..........................................................................................................4 2024 No -Build Traffic Volumes................................................................................................6 Site -Generated Traffic..............................................................................................................8 Assignment of Site -Generated Trips.......................................................................................9 2024 Build Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................13 CapacityAnalysis...................................................................................................................15 TrafficCrash Analysis............................................................................................................ 20 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.................................................................21 APPENDIX A — Traffic Count Data APPENDIX B — Capacity Analysis Worksheets APPENDIX C — Level of Service Definitions Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I I I 0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Junegrass Apartments development is located to the east of North Meridian Road, north of West Arizona Street, and west of Sunset Boulevard in Kalispell, Montana (see Figure 1). The proposed development will consist of 144 apartments (see Figure 2). Full buildout of the development is expected to require three years. Accordingly, the design year for this traffic analysis is 2024. Vehicle access to the development is proposed via one full -movement driveway onto North Meridian Road and the extension of Underhill Court, which leads to a full -movement intersection with West Arizona Street. The subject property currently consists of a few single-family homes which will be removed to make way for this project and is otherwise undeveloped. It is surrounded by a mix of commercial, offices, multi- family residential, and single-family residential. This traffic impact study was prepared using standard traffic engineering techniques to forecast traffic volumes and operations at the proposed site access points and nearby study intersections. Capacity analysis is presented both with and without the traffic generated by the proposed development to determine what impact this development will have on traffic operations. After consultation with the City of Kalispell the following intersections were identified for detailed traffic analysis: 1. Underhill Court and West Arizona Street 2. 5th Ave W N and West Arizona Street 3. Sunset Blvd (US 93) and West Arizona Street 4. North Meridian Road and Site Driveway In brief, the analysis conducted for this report leads to the conclusion that the subject development will not negatively impact traffic operations at any of the study intersections and that traffic to and from the proposed development will operate at an acceptable level of service. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 1 FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 3 0 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM and PM peak -period manual traffic counts were conducted to identify peak existing traffic volumes at the study intersections on Wednesdays and Thursdays in July 2021. The AM peak -period counts were conducted between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and the PM peak -period counts were conducted between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. The count data (included in Appendix A) was analyzed to determine the existing AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume at each study intersection. The existing peak -hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 3. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 4 LYGENr •+� ' �. t f p 'y T!1#LL MILL .4 L 1 i F •i y -,per} • . i I r � ram._ ■ ",� t 47 0 2024 NO -BUILD TRAFF ' VOLUMEc The year 2021 existing traffic volumes were projected to the study year 2024 using a 2% per year peak hour traffic growth rate. This growth rate was selected based on traffic growth trends apparent within historic traffic count data contained on the MDT web site for West Arizona Street and North Meridian Road in the vicinity of the subject property. The 2024 No Build traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. This is the traffic projected to exist in the study year if the proposed Junegrass Apartments development is not constructed. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 6 FIGURE 4: 2024 NO BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 0 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC The proposed Junegrass Apartments development is anticipated to consist of 144 apartments in mid -rise buildings three stories tall. Data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication I[ii Generation (10th Edition) was used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. Table 1 shows the results of the Junegrass Apartments development trip -generation calculations. TABLE 1: JUNEGRASS APARTMENTS SITE -GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I $ 0 ASSIGNMENT OF SITE -GENERA TEI-) TRIPS The existing peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections were analyzed to determine trip directionality throughout the study area. Trip distribution at the site access points was estimated based on the distribution of development within the site relative to the site access locations. The resulting site traffic arrival and departure patterns are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The site -generated vehicle trips from Table 1 were distributed through the study intersections in accordance with the estimated arrival and departure patterns, resulting in the AM and PM peak -hour site -generated trips shown in Figure 7. These are the vehicle trips that are new to the roadway network as a result of development of the Junegrass Apartments development. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 9 FIGURE 7: SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I12 0 2024 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES Combining the site -generated trips from Figure 7 with the 2024 no -build traffic volumes from Figure 4 results in the projected study year 2024 build traffic volumes shown in Figure 8. These are the traffic volumes projected to exist when the Junegrass Apartments development is fully built -out and occupied. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 13 FIGURE 8; 2024 BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 14 0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Intersection capacity analysis was conducted for each of the study intersections in accordance with the procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2016 Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. The analysis results are discussed below and the analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix B. The analysis procedures result in traffic level of service (LOS) rankings from A to F, with A representing essentially free -flow conditions and F representing congested conditions. See Appendix C for a description of the various LOS categories for unsignalized intersections. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 15 INTERSECTION OF NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD AND SITE ACCESS EXISTING CONDITIONS North Meridian Road is a north/south minor arterial roadway with one travel lane in the northbound direction, two travel lanes in the southbound direction, and a center two-way left -turn lane. The proposed site driveway will intersect North Meridian Road at a full movement, stop controlled intersection from the east. The speed limit on North Meridian Road is 30 mph. CAPACITYANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the 2024 build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report and the above -described intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2: NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD AND SITE ACCESS LOS SUMMARY Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 2 shows that the intersection will operate at a good level -of - service. No capacity improvements are required to accommodate the site -generated traffic. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 16 INTERSECTION OF WEST ARIZONA STREET AND UNDERHILL COURT EXISTING CONDITIONS West Arizona Street is an east/west local roadway with one travel lane in each direction. Underhill Court, a local roadway, intersects West Arizona Street from the north at an uncontrolled "T" intersection. There are no posted speed limits on either of these neighborhood roadways. CAPACITYANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the 2024 no -build and build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report and the above -described intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3: WEST ARIZONA STREET AND UNDERHILL COURT LOS SUMMARY Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 3 shows that the site -generated traffic will have no impact on delay or operations at this intersection. A stop sign should be installed by the developer on the southbound Underhill Court approach to provide positive intersection control and improve safety at this location. As it exists there is an approximately 120' road extension from Underhill Court proper extending to the north towards the proposed development. It is suggested this existing extension be improved to facilitate two-way traffic per the City of Kalispell standards. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 17 INTERSECTION OF WEST ARIZONA STREET AND 5T" AVE WN EXISTING CONDITIONS West Arizona Street is an east/west local roadway with one travel lane in each direction and 5th Ave W N is a north/south local roadway with one travel lane in each direction. 5th Ave W N intersects West Arizona Street from the south at a "T" intersection, with stop control on both West Arizona Street approaches. The speed limit is not posted on either of these neighborhood roadways. CAPACITYANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the 2024 no -build and build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report and the above -described intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4. TABLE 4: WEST ARIZONA STREET AND 5T" AVE W N LOS SUMMARY Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 4 shows that the site -generated traffic will have no impact on delay or operations at this intersection. No intersection improvements are required. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 18 INTERSECTION OF WEST ARIZONA STREET AND SUNSET BOULEVARD (US 93) EXISTING CONDITIONS West Arizona Street is an east/west local roadway with one travel lane in each direction and no posted speed limit. West Arizona Street intersects Sunset Boulevard (US Highway 93) from the west at stop controlled, "T" intersection at an angle of approximately 45-degrees. Sunset Boulevard is a north/south principal arterial with two travel lanes in each direction and a center two-way left -turn lane. The speed limit on Sunset Boulevard is 35 mph. CAPACITYANALYSIS Capacity analysis of this intersection was conducted using the 2024 no -build and build traffic volumes developed earlier in this report and the above -described intersection configuration. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5. TABLE 5: WEST ARIZONA STREET AND SUNSET BOULEVARD (US 93) LOS SUM Eastbound 1 23.3 1 C 1 20.8 1 C 1 89.6 1 F 1 102.6 1 F Northbound 1 9.1 1 A 9.2 A 14.1 B 14.5 B Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The analysis summarized in Table 5 shows that while the eastbound leg of the intersection is already at or below a LOS C in the no -build condition, the site -generated traffic will have little impact on delay or operations at this intersection. The site contributes only 30 peak -hour vehicles to this intersection and fewer than five vehicles on the critical left -turn movement from the side street. No intersection improvements are required to mitigate site traffic. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 19 0 TRAFFIC CRASH ANALYSIS WGM Group requested three years of data from the MDT Crash Database for the intersections included in this study. Data from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020 was reviewed and findings are summarized below. North Meridian Road — between Three Mile Drive and Liberty Street: Eight crashes were recorded in the three-year period consisting of three right angle collisions; two sideswipe same direction collisions; one fixed object collision; one bicycle collision; and one rear end collision. Seven of the collisions were property damage only crashes, while the bicycle collision had a suspected minor injury. Underhill Court and West Arizona Street: No crashes were recorded at this intersection during the three year period studied. 5t" Avenue West North and West Arizona Street: One crash was recorded in the three-year period consisting of a non -injury fixed object collision. US Highway 93/Sunset Boulevard and West Arizona Street: Five crashes were recorded in the three-year period consisting of one rear -end; three fixed object collisions; and one left turn, same direction collision. The rear -end collision severity was a suspected serious injury, and the other four collisions were property damage only severity. No correctable traffic crash trends were observed in the reviewed data. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 20 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The discussion and analyses contained in this report can be summarized as follows: • The proposed Junegrass Apartments development is located to the east of North Meridian Road, north of West Arizona Street, and west of Sunset Boulevard in Kalispell, Montana. The proposed development will consist of 144 apartments in a series of four-story buildings. • Vehicle access to the development is proposed from one full -movement driveway approach onto North Meridian Road and the extension of Underhill Court, which leads to a full -movement intersection with West Arizona Street. • A stop sign should be installed by the developer on the southbound Underhill Court approach at West Arizona Street to provide positive intersection control and improve safety at this location. • As it exists there is an approximately 120' road extension from Underhill Court proper extending to the north towards the proposed development. It is suggested this existing extension be improved to facilitate two-way traffic per the City of Kalispell standards. • The proposed development will generate new traffic within the study area. Highway Capacity Manual based analysis shows that this traffic can be readily accommodated, with no appreciable impact on delay or operations at all of the study intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours. • Three years of crash data was reviewed for each of the study intersections. No correctable traffic crash trends were identified. Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I 21 0 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNT DATA Junegrass Apartments i�i Traffic Impact Study I O O Y Y !6 N !6 N v v (6 LO N LO O CO 0 y0 r d) O (p O CO LO O N co co co 0 co co V co LO _ 6 — W _ — > m r- m N V O V CO O �3 D O M O COO O N M > m N O O co m N N co �3 D O O M o I'- M CO I--N N N N N N F M M M M M M M N II CO � N LO I-- N = J O� 0 0 M m 0 M J d s= s= O L 0 0 0 O O — 0 0 Q L 0 0 0 — O — 0 0 N -0 16 !6 W W CIO) Lc) �:: o�2 O O LD ry ry N W 0 M 22 r m r 0 M C2 � O V� O O V J M J r O [� Q r Ln N O Ln M O (O L M o CO 22 r r OcoM I� O` I— O N co I-N N r Q L O V COO m 2 F L F LOo IY Z z m o O N O O M o) V O N V V M I- ry ry N V M M N N O (O (O N M O LO J J C C o O o O L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — O L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O F F >N >N L mN — M N N V O V CO L m� � V M � � M O CO ry ry � — O M o o o N w N N V N N M N M O) J J C O M N d) O M N I� N C O D O M O CO LO Q L o o CO m m W o M Q L �2 o (D o O C� ) U) m o O N V V I— M Mo m O co LO (O VcLl CO co cl ry ry Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o f a a a a a a a a o f Lc�ou�OLc�oLc�o M V O � M V O = o Y; LUoQou�oLUo M V O Lo M V O = o Y; co W W W d) � V V V LO LO LO LO (O � o QQQQQQQQ o aaaaaaaa N N O o O o O o O o N O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln r O— M V O— M V N O co V O co V C N > I— r r r co co co co N > V V V V o o o o w 0 U Q L -wo O L -U O U J m o~ a r a o m a�(DQ Q a C � Y Y Lo O) O v LO r- 2 m— > m � pNN�CO NCOM� C � 2 3 00000000 0 � J O n rn m w o H 3 -O��NONOM�O CO C � 3 O > .000000000 0 ^� ry = 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 � J 7 O t 7 O M 00 O O O O O O O 0 IY O N L 7 O U > � = m 0 n 3 O m Q � c Q N 'N R m �QY a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O E !C OLC)OLC 000 = d Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 00000000 I� r r r 00 00 00 00 AAIAA 30 �vLOr- r- o 2 n �— o > m p N "I- m 0 m 0 m C � II _ J 00000000 0 a � 0 0 n m w � O — N O O — — O N H 3 7 ~ O >N p)� 0 0 — — 0 0 0 (Y J0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 7 O t 7 O M p�0 O O O O O O O 0 IY d m m m m m m Q O E 7 M V V V Ln Ln Ln Ln � � d 0 d d d d d d d d L O 7 M V O 7 M V V V V V Ln Ln Ln Ln 7 m rn 3 O � N a a Y R a n 0 II LL 2 a u mrnvv O M N N CO N 2 (6 — (6 N O C H cr -O J N N— N O N— N LO C 0 0 n 3:2 N a� � _ N 0 0 0 — — O N H -O 00-0 M —O LO � C J O Z [y DO N O MOO — O V ry 7 C H 7 O cu N W M N — O lL7 O — — O I- IY Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O E ,L200.. O V 97 OM V O -�C O r r r W W W W N N> d Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 00000000 r r r r W W W W u j N O) N O O 0 (O (O (O (O (O 2 C r- O O V w r- m t H N C II _ In In W Cl) N a � 0 0 n N a� � Cl) N Cl) N V Cl) — N H -O J LO N M 0— V V LO N C 7 O Q t O z p) lL7 N N — N (O (Y 7 0 0 0 O � V N C H 7 O Q N (6 + W O— — M M M O N N O) IY lL7 OM V O O O V O 7 -C d d d d d d d d d V O M V O M V V V V V lL7 lL7 lL7 lL7 7 c (6 O L >� a a R a a co 00 O II LL 2 a O O Y m Y m N v N v �p O N CO Cl) I— O 0 r O o r V d) M o O O M V V M M N N N N N N 00 _ �— ao _ �— > m' 0 I— d) (D V V M N O O LO O O M V CO o > m rn LO CO I-- (Do o Lo � o O CO CO CO CO O) N O F N N M V M M M V C F Ln Ln L() V CO LO LO V M N N O M CO II = N O— N N M— V CO J IL J s= s= O L— o o O O — O M Q V Q L O o o O O O O O O m W m W L m0 O — N N — — — LO L m0 O V V O O O CO ry ry 0 0 0 0 O O O O w— O N N o M J J r' I� W o O o V o V N LO (O M I� O d) N O O O V O) O r r N co W Q (D V M LO CO V O O N � N � N CO y F N N N N N N N N Y o z o) O O O N (D co r FK ry � M N N N M N CO N N o t V M M J J C C o O o O L L 0 0 0 O O O N L L O o o O O O O O O F F >N >N L m0 O — N O O O N N L O)— O — O — O V — N ry ry 0 0 0 O M w o o o-- O— O N J J C o` o V V I— N W C O` O o CO I� o o co Q L N V M N LP LP I� Q L W m N N W m o M N L F o LO L F N N M N M N N N o o O C� ) U) m O M M O M M I— r N Ln N M ry ry Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o f a a a a a a a a o f Lc�oLc�o Do LDo co V O V M V O = D Y up o LD o LD o LDo V O— M V O = D Y o co W W W O) > V V V LO LO LO LO (O a n N N o o QQQQQQQQ o aaaaaaaa N O o O o O o O o N O LO O LO O LO O LO Q m- O M V O M V m O M V O M V N I— r r r co co co co N V V V V o o o o C co d) o _ -o O -o O m o~ � r a r a o C � rr cq d 0 APPENDIX B CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Junegrass Apartments i�i Traffic Impact Study I HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Meridian and Site Access Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street N Meridian Rd Time Analyzed AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes 1 Analysis Time Period (hrs) J4 1).4- 0 +� �l71tyt �r Major Street. North -South 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LR TR L T Volume (veh/h) 9 11 424 3 3 446 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.86 6.26 4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 22 3 Capacity, c (veh/h) 463 1086 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.2 8.3 Level of Service (LOS) B A Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.2 0.1 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 2:03:47 PM AAMBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Meridian and Site Access Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Site Access Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street N Meridian Rd Time Analyzed PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes 1 Analysis Time Period (hrs) J4 1).4- 0 +� �l71tyt �r Major Street. North -South 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LR TR L T Volume (veh/h) 6 8 627 10 8 751 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.86 6.26 4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 15 9 Capacity, c (veh/h) 290 892 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.1 9.1 Level of Service (LOS) C A Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.1 0.1 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 2:04:35 PM APMBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Underhill and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Underhill Court Time Analyzed AM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.71 Intersection Orientation East-West Project Description Junegrass Lanes � 4 1 � Analysis Time Period (hrs) J41).4- «t- r � G 111tyt Major Street. East-West 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h) 0 11 6 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 0 1 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1605 989 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 8.6 Level of Service (LOS) A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 8.6 Approach LOS A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 8/12/2021 8:56:10 AM BAMNBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Underhill and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Underhill Court Time Analyzed AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.71 Intersection Orientation East-West Project Description Junegrass Lanes � 4 1 � Analysis Time Period (hrs) J41).4- «t- r � G 111tyt Major Street. East-West 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h) 0 11 6 7 17 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 0 24 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1592 983 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.8 Level of Service (LOS) A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 11:31:49 AM BAM B.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Underhill and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Underhill Court Time Analyzed PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.71 Intersection Orientation East-West Project Description Junegrass Lanes � 4 1 � Analysis Time Period (hrs) J41).4- «t- r � G 111tyt Major Street. East-West 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h) 0 2 14 1 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 0 1 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1588 990 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.6 Level of Service (LOS) A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 8.6 Approach LOS A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 8/12/2021 8:58:31 AM BPMNBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Underhill and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Underhill Court Time Analyzed PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.71 Intersection Orientation East-West Project Description Junegrass Lanes � 4 1 � Analysis Time Period (hrs) J41).4- «t- r � G 111tyt Major Street. East-West 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h) 0 2 14 22 12 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec) 4.13 6.43 6.23 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.23 3.53 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 0 17 Capacity, c (veh/h) 1549 972 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.8 Level of Service (LOS) A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 11:33:29 AM BPMBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection 5th Ave W N and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street 5th Ave W N Time Analyzed AM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.61 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 1 �a +� r� Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LTR Volume (veh/h) 12 8 5 2 5 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.5 7.1 7.1 6.5 5.3 Critical Headway (sec) 6.53 7.13 7.13 6.53 5.33 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.0 3.1 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.03 3.93 3.53 4.03 3.13 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 33 11 8 Capacity, c (veh/h) 917 955 1151 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 8.8 8.1 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.1 8.8 4.6 Approach LOS A A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 8:32:52 AM CAM N Bxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection 5th Ave W N and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street 5th Ave W N Time Analyzed AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.61 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 1 �a J4 1).4- 0 «t- +� r� Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LTR Volume (veh/h) 26 10 5 9 6 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.5 7.1 7.1 6.5 5.3 Critical Headway (sec) 6.53 7.13 7.13 6.53 5.33 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.0 3.1 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.03 3.93 3.53 4.03 3.13 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 59 23 10 Capacity, c (veh/h) 917 926 1151 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.02 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.2 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.0 8.2 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.0 4.9 Approach LOS A A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 11:36:19 AM CAMBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection 5th Ave W N and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street 5th Ave W N Time Analyzed PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 1 �a +� r� Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LTR Volume (veh/h) 2 10 27 13 16 0 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.5 7.1 7.1 6.5 5.3 Critical Headway (sec) 6.53 7.13 7.13 6.53 5.33 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.0 3.1 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.03 3.93 3.53 4.03 3.13 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 14 47 19 Capacity, c (veh/h) 917 935 1151 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.05 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.0 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.1 8.2 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.1 6.0 Approach LOS A A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 8:29:23 AM C PM N B.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection 5th Ave W N and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street 5th Ave W N Time Analyzed PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 1 �a J4 1).4- 0 «t- +� r� Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LTR Volume (veh/h) 12 11 27 32 18 0 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.5 7.1 7.1 6.5 5.3 Critical Headway (sec) 6.53 7.13 7.13 6.53 5.33 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.0 3.1 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 4.03 3.93 3.53 4.03 3.13 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 27 69 21 Capacity, c (veh/h) 917 916 1151 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.07 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.2 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.3 8.2 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.3 6.2 Approach LOS A A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 11:37:16 AM CPMBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Sunset/US 93 and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Sunset/US 93 Time Analyzed AM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration LR L T T TR Volume (veh/h) 11 5 0 0 919 629 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.86 6.96 4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 18 0 Capacity, c (veh/h) 215 868 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.3 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.3 9.1 Level of Service (LOS) C A Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.3 0.0 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 8:12:31 AM DAMNBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Sunset/US 93 and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Sunset/US 93 Time Analyzed AM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 J4 1).4- 0 Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration LR L T T TR Volume (veh/h) 15 16 0 4 919 629 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.86 6.96 4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 35 5 Capacity, c (veh/h) 263 865 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.5 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.8 9.2 Level of Service (LOS) C A Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.8 0.0 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 8:11:33 AM DAM B.xtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Sunset/US 93 and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Sunset/US 93 Time Analyzed PM No Build Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration LR L T T TR Volume (veh/h) 9 9 0 13 1117 1352 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.86 6.96 4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 21 15 Capacity, c (veh/h) 62 410 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.04 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 1.2 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 89.6 14.1 Level of Service (LOS) F B Approach Delay (s/veh) 89.6 0.2 Approach LOS F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 8:15:09 AM DPMNBxtw HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report 1111116 Site Information Analyst A Mathews Intersection Sunset/US 93 and Arizona Agency/Co. WGM Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 8/12/2021 East/West Street Arizona Analysis Year 2024 North/South Street Sunset/US 93 Time Analyzed PM Build Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation North -South Project Description Junegrass Lanes Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 J4 1).4- 0 Major Street. North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration LR L T T TR Volume (veh/h) 12 17 0 24 1117 1352 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.86 6.96 4.16 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 33 28 Capacity, c (veh/h) 67 407 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.07 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 2.0 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 102.6 14.5 Level of Service (LOS) F B Approach Delay (s/veh) 102.6 0.3 Approach LOS F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.8.5 Generated: 9/7/2021 8:13:23 AM DPMBxtw 0 APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Junegrass Apartments i�i Traffic Impact Study I UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINED Level of Service (LOS) for unsignalized (two -way -stop -controlled) intersections is determined by the control delay experienced by drivers on each minor approach. Minor movements are those entering from or exiting onto the stop -controlled side street(s). LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole, but rather for each minor movement individually. The delay value used in determining LOS is known as "control delay." Control delay is defined as the total delay experienced by a driver and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The delay a vehicle experiences is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation on the uncontrolled (unstopped) roadway (i.e. the number of acceptable gaps in the passing traffic stream). LOS values range from A to F. The delay range for each LOS value is as shown in the following table. LOS CRITERIA FOR TWO-WAY STOP -CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS LOS AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, HCM2010 fAk "MA Junegrass Apartments Traffic Impact Study I I S1F2sed Pedestrian Access Exhibit Concrete Sidewalk Multiuse Path Striped Bike Lane O Signalized Pedestrian Crossing MA I WGMGROUP -- iiplretl Future e. LEGEND-PROPOSED LEGEND -EXISTING wa�r au ... ...... - -- --------- -- ---- WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER2021 1 OF 1 All I I'-,! I I ifob '!U n 0 0 1A ot oa. oil`,- tt t; fivolliplopiva door, 4 MUL, To 00, 4�O 77 iT .cam_ Apo ,, ivy 3� � �� !`•�• ��' � � v e �� =---- -�=_� r�. 'u F � r �� i?-` , ..� ,�`. i , }�"ski, � � � � `<� ' r.� _ S�. L � � w� � _� � ,�, _��,pyte- _ �. a . � _r �s� � - � 1 r ' o -Wf -491 V � V V �,e � � , � � inor€nsiK PRELIMINARY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION �KHG Kalispell Housing GPM Emaaaaas naa PEoian e�as SxCONCEPTUAL PLAN ANALYSIS —41 inur€nsik PRELIMINARY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION KHG Kalispell Housing GND PEoia�� e��s CONCEPTAL PLAN ANALYSIS -41 11 ILA 1:116111 PRELIMINARY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION KHG r '"N" Housing GPM WINCIEll AL PLAN ANALYSIS T� T EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND 0 IIEXI.1wI.E ET `aILN_E, I"EITIE,.Pawl Firm wTF_Lll , aIEXI.1w11E 11LE, IEEITIE. " ETTTIFII, eIEXI.1w— .ET `a�L= E, IEIE, TIE..E TPawl IFI 11 irm l'IL'T, "ll TI11, ,.ET E , II,F o 1,1,ELF,R �"— ATEI.E—IIINo III PRELIMINARY NOTIFOR CONSTRUCTION KHG r `-IM" Housing GPM ELE-1— T T T- rim —CONCEPTUAL A ANALYSIS ;EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND Y eioC wi m STaLcNME, TaimNE Palm, FiM °aizomTaP as'GlTam�a ELLll aIo�maw�MSTaL�NI,", a�M Pa�mTF�m,a eioC wi.EL aLcNELEEEa TintaPawl FiaHirm ¢o,LoammTaT�aP IIE °i aIo�maw,.ETaLE'GamEaTa�M PaIMUm�a°��°�oa"a�1P �a «� Q° — ULFR HEoCoaaUaaTEOMETaLaIoIma - ® ® ® 0� IG 0 T T IT, - 1F v v a 4, t �t m °Immoo= o __ mm e emw - - �_ a ;. IV IV IV IV t �t Tt- .... . ........ F- T - —1 12 0 (b 0 8) (b incinnSIK I T T I PRELIMINARY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION KHG F—EIT—E Kalispell Housing GPM CONCEPTUAL PLAN ANALYSIS oa�o�Now,ME,A��oRNER,R�M PA�N,F�N� oR�=oN,A�� o a�o�Now,ME,A��oRNER,R�M PA�N,F�N� ��oNrA�� as«o�oRn oa�o�Now,ME,A��oRNER,R�M PA�N,F�N� a�o�Now,ME,A��oRNER,R�M P2,TllN�as«o�oR;,� o�oRR�M��«o�oRos;�=oN,A� T T T T o 11RR� TEOME:A�s�1— -, � �i qj ,r--0El On 0- ��, III ©1=111i On -n_-Ili-=--n WIN - 0�-�_n------n_ in __ ! - - !�! l�i�l--- - --- - -=rill __o-- o-�o -- in ZZE0 -0 I III_-0On On ©- __ ill =0 = rT9-0=- T T tT T T T T EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND ET a�,E=,I.E IILEFIl EEITIE. E, T TTIFII I ETIAILEF,1,1N"EEITIE." E, T TTIFII I I I"IILITIL I I ET I EXIIIIIE IIEF ll"EIIE"El III. - "IIIIIIL O" � , �. �, E_ .. _ T, "L.. IIELF,a �)IEI 11 11—TEI . El L al 11 (D-- ID ID PRELIMINARY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION KHG KWmpdI Housing GPM CONCEPT AL A �ANALPYLSIS n ED= ' PIPING g") Nlel .Ell ePo 1, T j, EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND SIDINGWG E NT L, D inrjr:nsili EETX�`LllUlNE`,lTEFl. 11PIED IP"N%N, «,UEIP PIPING Wl NT F L, ') O ETXI`Ll PIUME PITEF 1. 1 IPIED I E "N%N, � I U,�'l P GIN NG Wl I NT F , L ') I XP IEDPEEIIP-P PIPING DITU-LFINI E 1 2'7 EN, � E O EETXIPLIIUINEPITEFI.IIPINTEID IF PEU IP PIDINGWI L. . . O PII NTP IENFgl"E DlE" E NTITI lUl PINE L 11 DING F 'L PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION KHG Kalispell Housing GPM El11Issl,I CONCEPTUAL PLAN ANALYSIS EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND ' EXIIIIIE ` IEF III El I E I E- 111 11 11 ET L .. El T. , I I "—T— , ILI' EXII111E 'IEF1"El II E- I1_11 11 TT I` Xs I intrinsii T.—TI OI `IllE ETXAILI'1,1,1NEE 'I ITEFI.11"A,—E"T FN%l I 'NTll%g 1IE" EITITI 111 11 IE L 111111 F L, PRELIMINARY AlIlTEITg,A,LA—Al NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION no MEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T T t T t T KHG Housing GPM CONCEPT AL PLAN ANALYSIS El inur nsik PRELIMINARY CONOTFO NSTRUCTION KHG asH_ing GPM �� I � it ■I --�� NIX - ---- --- -- ---- -- ------- - ------ - ---- ---- - 1 s =E.o 1 3 w 0 3 SITE STATISTICS 138 LIVING UNITS BUILDING BREAKDOWNS 24 UNIT BUILDING 20 UNITBUILDING j s T (69)1BEDUNITS/(41)2BED UNITS/(28)3BED 191 PARKING SPACES 207 REQUIRED 197 REQUIRED WITH BIKE RACK 186 REQUIRED BY ADMIN ADJUSTMENT UNITS REDUCTION (12)1BED UNITS /(e)2BED 12 UNIT BUILDING (6) 1BED UNITS/ (6) 2BED UNITS/ (6) 3BED UNITS UNITS (10) 1BED UNITS /(6) 2BED UNITS/ (4) 3BED UNITS 10 UNIT BUILDING (5) 1BED UNITS/ (5) 2BED UNITS ....... Y o KIT. RE CONCEPTAL SITE PLAN ANALYSIS A101 --------------- - -------- ---------- - —ao III a -------------------- LEGEND-EXISTING EL ��^.� ® ,n Euap�P�Ea v MA WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY C() z C() Lu z < z < Z Z < 0 0 C() C) co -j (.9 g-i Lu Lu X z D Lu 1 OF 6 LEGEND -PROPOSED PARKING COUNTS LEGEND -EXISTING v MA WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY SEPTENIBER2021 2 OF 6 LEGEND -PROPOSED LEGEND -EXISTING v MA WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY SEPTENIBER2021 3 OF 6 LEGEND -PROPOSED LEGEND -EXISTING v MA WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY SEPTENIBER2021 4 OF 6 LEGEND -PROPOSED LEGEND -EXISTING v MA WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY S EPTENIBER 2021 5 OF 6 LEGEND -PROPOSED mms ON=El LEGEND -EXISTING v MA WGM GROUP PRELIMINARY �GN SEPTENIBER2021 6 OF 6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 21-938 October 15, 2021 Prepared for. GMD Development, LLC Seattle, Washington Prepared by: LPINE _=GEOTECHNICAL 120 Round Stone Drive, Suite 101 Kalispell, Montana 59901 406.257.6479 rLPINE GEOTECHNICAL October 15, 2021 GMD Development, LLC 520 Pike Street Suite 1010 Seattle, WA 98101 Ph: 206.790.7729 Attn: Thomas Geffner, Project Manager thomasCa)-gmddevelopment.com Re: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Kalispell Housing GMD (Junegrass Place) Kalispell, Montana Dear Mr. Geffner: Alpine Geotechnical, LLC (Alpine) has completed the geotechnical investigation for the planned Junegrass Place apartment development at 1079 North Meridian Road in Kalispell, Montana. We were asked to provide geotechnical information and recommendations needed to assist with the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and earthwork related phases of this project. The results of our field investigation, observations, laboratory test results, engineering analysis, exploration location plan, and boring logs are included in this report. These services were provided in accordance with our proposal dated July 2, 2021 and subsequent authorization to proceed. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your project, and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please contact us. Sincerely, ALPINE GEOTECHNICAL, LLC Kagan M. Rutz, P.E. Principal/Senior Engineer NTAtiq KAGAN ' RUTZ �t J$417PE d RE t Cliff Clark Staff Geological Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF KEY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS................................................. i INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT INFORMATION.................................................................................................... 1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES........................................................................................... 1 FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................................................ 1 LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................ 2 SITECONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 3 GEOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 3 SOILCONDITIONS................................................................................................................ 3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 5 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................ 5 SITE PREPARATION.............................................................................................................. 6 FOUNDATION PREPARATION................................................................................................. 6 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION............................................................................................. 9 BELOW -GRADE WALLS........................................................................................................ 9 SLOPE STABILITY/EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS............................................................... 10 DRAINAGE......................................................................................................................... 11 FLOORSLABS................................................................................................................... 11 EARTHWORK..................................................................................................................... 12 PAVEMENTS...................................................................................................................... 14 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A Exploration Location Plan Boring Logs APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results Double Ring Infiltration Test Results APPENDIX C General Notes Unified Soil Classification System SUMMARY OF KEY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Based on the information obtained from our subsurface investigation, the site can be properly developed for the proposed project with implementation of the recommendations contained in this report. The following presents a summary of key geotechnical considerations and recommendations: Typical subsurface conditions across the majority of the site include topsoil/organic matter atop either lean clay, silt, or sand within the upper portion of the profile. Along the eastern portion of the property moving uphill towards Sunset Blvd, the subsurface conditions consist primarily of glacial till, or gravelly silt with sand. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from about 16.0 to 19.9 feet below grade at the time of the field investigation. Foundations can be established on properly prepared native lean clay or gravelly silt (glacial till) subgrade if present at foundation depth. The allowable bearing pressure for direct bearing on native lean clay (Area A) is 2,000 pounds per square foot. The allowable bearing pressure for direct bearing on glacial till subgrade (Area C) or Structural Fill atop properly prepared native subgrade (Area B) is 3,000 pounds per square foot. Structural Fill replacement under foundations will be required in Area B in areas where native silty sand subgrade is encountered at or below foundation depth. Refer to the Foundations section of this report for complete recommendations. The building floor slabs should be supported by a minimum of 8 inches of Structural Fill and 4 inches of crushed base course atop native subgrade. Detailed recommendations are presented in the Floor Slabs section of this report. From the 2018 International Building Code Section 1613.3.2, and ASCE 7-16 Table 20.3- 1, the seismic site classification for this site is D. The recommended standard duty pavement section for roadways and parking areas is 3 inches of asphalt pavement, 4 inches of crushed base course, and a minimum of 9 inches of subbase course placed atop a geotextile fabric over properly prepared native subgrade. The recommended heavy duty pavement section for delivery and garbage trucks is 4 inches of asphalt pavement, 6 inches of crushed base course, and 12 inches of subbase course atop geotextile fabric over properly prepared native subgrade. The infiltration rate of the subgrade soils via double ring infiltrometer testing is 6.8 in/hr. The FOUrlciatiorl of a 4acCESSfU1 Project Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be essential in achieving the design foundation support for both building and pavement improvements. It is therefore critical that Alpine Geotechnical be retained to provide observation/testing during the earthwork portion of the project to help ensure satisfactory performance. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. The Fo4lndaftn of a SUCcessfUl Project GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 21-938 October 15, 2021 INTRODUCTION Alpine Geotechnical has completed a subsurface investigation for a new apartment complex development to be located at 1079 North Meridian Road in Kalispell, Montana. In accordance with our proposal, a total of fifteen (15) borings, which included three (3) test pits, were drilled or excavated to investigate subsurface conditions within the areas of proposed improvements. These borings and test pits are in addition to the three (3) borings that were drilled during the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Homeword, Inc. and report dated July 17, 2020. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, present the test data, and provide final geotechnical recommendations based upon our analysis with regard to earthwork, foundations, floor slabs, below -grade walls for the new structures, pavements and storm drainage systems. PROJECT INFORMATION The project includes an apartment complex development on approximately 6 acres of land located at 1079 North Meridian Road in Kalispell, Montana. The project includes a total of 8 buildings including 24-unit apartments, 12-unit apartments, community building, access roads, parking areas, and site amenities. The apartment buildings are anticipated to be three stories, and the community building will be single story. The project includes full site development, including underground utility installation (water, sewer, gas, electric) along with paved access roads and parking areas. The proposed buildings are anticipated to be constructed using wood and structural steel framing, with concrete perimeter strip foundations, isolated concrete column foundations, and concrete slab -on -grade. Loading is unknown at this time, but is assumed to be less than 4,000 pounds per lineal foot for perimeter line loads, and less than 100,000 pounds for columns. Foundation depths for this addition are presumed to be 3.5 feet below existing grade, with no basement areas anticipated. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Field Exploration Subsurface exploration took place September 15-17, 2021, and included twelve (12) borings, designated DH-1 through DH-5, and DH-8 through DH-14 drilled within proposed building and parking areas to depths ranging from 7.0 to 32.0 feet below existing grade. In addition, three (3) test The Foundation of a Successful Project Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E =GEOTECHNICAL pits, designated TIP-6, TIP-7, and TIP-1 5, were excavated within proposed building and parking areas to depths ranging from 4.0 to 6.0 feet below existing grade. An exploration location plan and individual logs of each boring/test pit are included in Appendix A. The borings were advanced using a truck mounted, rotary drill rig (CME 45B) using continuous flight hollow -stem augers and the test pits were excavated with a Bobcat E55 compact excavator, both owned and operated by Alpine Geotechnical. Representative samples were obtained by split -barrel sampling methods in general accordance with applicable ASTM D1586, where the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N) is determined based on the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch outside diameter split -barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. This value is used to estimate the in -situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. Representative undisturbed samples were also taken with a thin -walled tube sampler in general accordance with ASTM D1587, where a nominal 3-inch outside diameter galvanized tube with a beveled cutting edge is pushed hydraulically through fine-grained subgrade materials to obtain a relatively intact soil sample suitable for compressibility, permeability, strength, and density testing. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled by the drill crew with auger cuttings at the conclusion of each boring. A field log of each boring was prepared by our geoscientist. These logs included visual classifications of the subsurface materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent field classifications, modified as needed based on laboratory tests of the samples. The logs also contain the field SPT results, natural moisture content, groundwater information, and any boring -specific comments. Laboratory Testing Representative portions of each recovered sample obtained during the field investigation were sealed in air tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual and laboratory examination. Each sample obtained during the field investigation was tested for natural moisture content. Selected samples were tested for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index (ASTM D4318), particle size (ASTM C136 & C117), in -situ unit weight (density), one-dimensional consolidation/swell (ASTM D2435), specific gravity of soil solids (ASTM D854), maximum dry density (ASTM D698), and California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1883) to aid in soil classification and to provide input for our analyses. A description of the laboratory test results for each project site is included in the Soil Conditions section of this report, and complete results of the laboratory tests are attached in Appendix B. Based on our field classifications and laboratory test results, the estimated group symbol for each stratum is shown on the logs, according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A brief description of the USCS is attached to this report in Appendix C, along with General Notes that provide explanation of the USCS. The FOLVIdatiOn of a LJrCE89fUl Project 2 Geotechnical Investigation Report ALLPI E Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CONDITIONS Current ground cover across the entire site includes native grasses/trees, as the majority of the property is presently undeveloped. Two single -story residential homes are situated along the west end of the property. The existing grade slopes gradually upward towards the east, with the majority of the elevation gain along the far east end of the property. The exploration location map in Appendix A shows the property divided into three separate areas based on subsurface conditions (Area A, Area B, Area C). Area A is relatively flat with an elevation gain of approximately 5 feet +/- from west to east. Area B slopes gradually with an elevation gain of approximately 10 feet +/- from west to east. Area C slopes significantly, with an elevation gain of approximately 40 feet from west to east. Based on this information and the elevations of adjacent roads and properties, the design elevations are likely to be lower than the existing grades across the majority of the site. Therefore, the majority of the site will require substantial excavations with minimal fill areas. The Exploration Location Plan included in Appendix A illustrates the boring locations relative to existing site features. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Geology The project site is located in Kalispell, Montana, which lies in the Rocky Mountain Trench bounded by the Salish Mountains to the west and the Swan Range to the east. These mountain ranges were formed during Tertiary tectonic activity in which Precambrian Belt rocks were faulted and uplifted. Pleistocene mountain and continental glaciation advanced generally southeastward through the trench in the vicinity of Kalispell depositing generally competent till soils beneath the base of the ice sheet. As the glaciers retreated, a sequence of weaker lakebed and outwash alluvial soils were deposited over the glacial till as meltwater accumulated in areas where drainage was impeded by morainal features. The project site is located in central Kalispell where glacial lakebed deposits consisting of lean clay, silt, and sand comprise the dominant near -surface landform. The lacustrine deposits overlie glacial till in most locations; however, near -surface glacial till was encountered along the east end of the site (Area C). Soil Conditions Based on the results of the borings and test pits, subsurface conditions across the site are variable, therefore, we have categorized the site into three separate areas (Area A, Area B, Area C) as shown by Figure A-1 in Appendix A. The areas are shown as rectangular shapes and have been simplified for ease of presentation based on including complete building areas. The divisions between areas should be considered approximate. The purpose of dividing the property into these three zones was to allow for different recommendations for foundation and pavement subgrade preparation because of differing subgrade soils present across the site. Subsurface conditions in Area A can be generalized as 1-2 feet of organic silt topsoil atop native soils. The native soils in Area A consists primarily of silty clay or lean clay in the upper 15-feet +/. The native clay has consistency that is generally very stiff to soft, based on SPT N-values ranging The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLJrC8SSfiJI Project 3 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 ALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL from 16 to 2 blows per foot, which decreases with depth. Natural moisture contents in this strata ranged from 6 to 28 percent, generally increasing with depth. Subsurface conditions in Area B can be generalized as 1-2 feet of organic silt topsoil atop native soils. The native soils in Area B generally consists of silty clay with sand in the upper 5 feet +/- transitioning to silty sand. The relative density of the silty sand in the upper 15-feet is generally loose, based upon SPT N-values ranging from 5 to 9 blows per foot. Natural moisture contents in this stratum ranged from 4 to 15 percent. Subsurface conditions in Area C can be generalized as approximately 1 foot of organic silt topsoil atop native soils. The native soils in Area C consists primarily of gravelly silt with sand (glacial till). The glacial till is very dense, based upon SPT N-values in excess of 50 blows per foot. Natural moisture contents in this strata ranged from 2 to 8 percent. Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate depths of changes in soil types. The in -situ transition between materials may be gradual. The attached logs should be reviewed for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at the individual investigation locations. Particle size testing (ASTM C117 & C136) of soils taken from the borings and test pits are shown in the table below: Boring/Test Pit Depth (ft) Passing No. 200 M Classification TP-6 4.0 53 Gravelly Silt with Sand (ML) DH-14 5.0 8 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) DH-4 6.0 26 Silty Sand (SM) DH-8 20.0 17 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) Liquid -limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index testing (ASTM D4318) of soils taken from the borings are shown in the table below: Boring Depth (ft) Liquid Limit M Plasticity Index M Classification DH-10 5.0 29 12 Lean Clay (CL) DH-2 10.0 32 15 Lean Clay (CL) One-dimensional consolidation/swell by ASTM D2435 was conducted on a portion of a thin -walled tube sample. A sample of lean clay from Boring DH-10 at a depth of 6.3 feet recorded axial strain The FOUndatian of a SLJrC8SSfiJI Project 4 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 AALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL values of 0.8, 1.7, 2.8, and 4.2 percent at normal stresses of 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, and 8,000 psf at field moisture content of 20 percent and dry density of 104 pcf. The normal stress was then reduced to 1,000 psf, and the sample ended at about 1.1 percent total axial strain. The consolidation test results indicate moderate shear strength and compressibility with minor collapse potential upon wetting. This will require special consideration for foundation preparation of buildings located in Area A, as discussed in the later Foundation Preparation section. Groundwater Conditions The borings were observed while drilling and immediately after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Static groundwater was encountered in all of the building borings during the field investigation at depths ranging from about 16.0 to 19.9 feet below existing grade. It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other hydrologic factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may vary relative to the conditions indicated on the logs. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations We understand that the proposed structures will feature conventional strip foundations around the perimeter established at frost depth (minimum 3.5 feet below adjacent grade), and that a concrete slab -on -grade will be used to support floors. For this type of construction, interior column footings are typically used less frequently, and thickened slab strip footings are commonly used to support load bearing walls. Design loading on the perimeter strip and interior line foundations has not been provided, so we have assumed maximum line loads of 4,000 pounds per lineal foot and maximum point loads of 100,000 pounds if column footings are to be used. We have performed our settlement analysis and prepared our foundation preparation recommendations based on this assumed loading information. Areas with higher loading will stress the soils more significantly, and will result in higher settlements than those estimated. Due to variable subsurface conditions across the site near the foundation level, we have divided the site into three areas (Area A, Area B, Area C). Each area represents the predominant native soil encountered in that vicinity. In Area A, the upper 30 feet of the soil profile primarily consists of native clay. In Area B, the upper 30 feet of the soil profile primarily consists of native sand, and in Area C, the upper portions of the soil profile primarily consists of native gravelly silt (glacial till). Each of these soils will behave differently under loading, therefore, specific foundation preparation recommendations have been developed for each area. These include either direct bearing on properly prepared native clay or glacial till subgrade or Structural Fill atop properly prepared silty sand subgrade. This will be further discussed in detail in the following Foundation Preparation section. The FOLVIdatiOn of a LJrCESSfUI Project 5 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 ALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL The organic silt topsoil materials that exist in the upper portion of the subsurface profile are not considered reliable to support either foundations or slabs in their current condition because of increased risk of excessive settlement. All existing topsoil materials should be removed from the site as the first step in preparing the site for construction. Individual boring logs, as well as the Soil Conditions section of this report should be reviewed for details on estimated depths of topsoil based on the field investigation. It should be noted that differences in topsoil thickness may occur between the relatively widely -spaced boring locations. Bidding contractors should be advised that soil borings were not completed to exactly quantify the depth of removal of unsuitable material (which would require additional, more closely -spaced borings), but rather to provide a general summary of anticipated subsurface conditions. The site will require varying depths of fill to achieve final grade for slab support. This should be accomplished using Structural Fill. To minimize the potential for differential movement, we recommend a minimum of 8 inches of Structural Fill and 4 inches of crushed base course be placed directly beneath all slab areas. All site clearing, subgrade preparation, and Structural Fill placement beneath slab areas should be performed following the recommendations of the Earthwork section of this report. Site Preparation To prepare the site for construction, all existing topsoil and organic matter should be completely removed under all building and roadway/parking areas. Smooth -lipped excavator buckets are best suited for this site, in order to minimize subgrade disturbance. Once the native subgrade has been encountered, the exposed native subgrade should be thoroughly recompacted to recover excavation disturbance. The subgrade in roadway and parking areas should be proof load tested using rubber -tired construction equipment, and should be stable under that loading. The surface should be cut or filled as necessary using Structural Fill, and prepared to an elevation that will accommodate a minimum of 8-inch thickness of Structural Fill and 4 inches of crushed base course directly beneath floor slabs. We recommend the entire building area be prepared as the initial step, and before any foundations are excavated, which allows for the work to be completed with larger equipment. All fill materials should be placed according to the Earthwork section of this report. Foundation recommendations are presented in the section below. Foundation Preparation The foundation preparation recommendations in this section are applicable to perimeter strip foundations, column foundations, and any interior thickened footings that are integral to the slab. As previously stated, the subgrade materials at foundation depth will consist of either native clay (Area A), native silt or sand (Area B), or native gravelly silt glacial till (Area C). These materials produce varying settlements based on an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Therefore, for the anticipated design loading, our analysis indicates that the loads for Area A can be adequately supported by direct bearing on the properly prepared native cohesive subgrade. For Area B, the loads can be adequately supported by Structural Fill atop properly prepared native silty sand subgrade. For Area C, the loads can be adequately supported by direct bearing on properly prepared native glacial till. The FOUndatian of a LJrCESSfUI Project 6 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 ALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL Our engineer should be afforded the opportunity to verify and evaluate subgrade conditions at the foundation level during excavation. Areas where soft silt or unforeseen soft soils are encountered should be undercut a minimum of 18 inches below planned foundation level and replaced with Structural Fill at the direction of Alpine Geotechnical personnel. Geotextile separation fabric (Geotex 200ST or Alpine approved equivalent) should be placed atop properly prepared subgrade to improve stability and ensure a uniform thickness of Structural Fill. Geogrid may be necessary atop the native sand to provide enough stability to adequately compact the Structural Fill. The Structural Fill should be placed and compacted according to the Earthwork section. A relative density of 98% of standard Proctor is the target for Structural Fill. However, it may not be possible to achieve this density over the native soft/loose subgrade materials. With the approval of Alpine's designated representative, 95% is acceptable if this situation arises. The Structural Fill should extend laterally a distance of 8 inches for every 12 inches of thickness. A sketch below shows the approximate dimensions for the Structural Fill. Typical Structural Fill Detail Under Strip and Spread Footings B ■ 6" ruin. Fasting _F■ 6" min. Design Footing --- ----------- ....... -r_-= - - -- - - -- Level _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 213H _ Structural Fill - _ _ _ - subgrade NTS Note: Excavations should be sloped or shored as necessary for safety Structural Fill should be sloped at 2/31-1:1V The base of each foundation excavation should be free of water and any loose or soft soil prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed as soon after foundation preparation as possible to reduce bearing soil disturbance. If the subgrade should become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed to an undisturbed surface and replaced under geotechnical observation prior to placing concrete. Design recommendations for shallow foundations to support the proposed buildings at each area of the site are presented below. The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLJrC8SSfiJI Project 7 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 Area A — Direct Bearing on Native Clay Description Allowable bearing pressure — Strip and Spread Footings Minimum footing dimensions Minimum embedment below finished grade for exterior foundations Approximate total settlement from foundation loads Estimated differential settlement from foundation loads LLPI N E =GEOTECHNICAL Value 2,000 psf Continuous footings: 18 inches Spread Footings: 36 inches 42 inches 1/2 inch 1/2 to 2/3 of the total settlement Area B — Structural Fill ReDlacement Description Allowable bearing pressure — Strip Footings Structural Fill Thickness = 1 Footina Width Allowable bearing pressure — Spread Footings Structural Fill Thickness = 1/2 Footing Width Minimum footing dimensions Minimum embedment below finished grade for exterior foundations Approximate total settlement from foundation loads Estimated differential settlement from foundation loads Value 3,000 psf 3,000 psf Continuous footings: 18 inches Spread Footings: 36 inches 42 inches 1/2 inch 1/2 to 2/3 of the total settlement Area C — Direct Bearing on Native Glacial Till Description Value Allowable bearing pressure — Strip and Spread Footings 3,000 psf Minimum footing dimensions Continuous footings: 18 inches Spread Footings: 36 inches Minimum embedment below finished grade for exterior 42 inches foundations Approximate total settlement from foundation loads 1/2 inch Estimated differential settlement from foundation loads 1 1/2 to 2/3 of the total settlement The FOUndatiarl of a SUCCeSSfUl Project 8 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 AALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL Foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depths of the footings, the thickness of gravel or engineered fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations and footing construction. These recommendations have been based on the maximum loads provided. Design loading in excess will increase the stress applied to the supporting soils, and require additional geotechnical analysis to ensure estimated settlement will meet engineer/owner expectations. Seismic Site Classification Code Used Site Classification 2018 International Building Code (IBC)DZ 1. In general accordance with the 2018 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.2, and ASCE 7-16 Table 20.3-1. 2. The 2018 International Building Code and ASCE 7-16 require a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested does not include the required 100-foot soil profile determination. Borings for this report extended to a maximum depth of 32 feet. Additional exploration to greater depths could be considered to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Alternatively, a geophysical exploration could be utilized in order to attempt to justify a more favorable seismic site class. The following seismic parameters per ASCE 7-16 are applicable to this project: • Seismic Risk Category II according to Table 1.5-1 • SS value of 0.881 per section 11.4.2 • S, value of 0.264 per section 11.4.2 • Fa value of 1.148 per section 11.4.4 The seismic parameters presented above were obtained by following the link in section 11.4.2 of ASCE 7-16 Mapped Acceleration Parameters. The values obtained are from the Applied Technology Council (ATC) which was accessed via link from the USGS Earthquake Hazards website, https://doi.orci/10.5066/F7NK3C76. The mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameters at periods of 1 second and 0.2 seconds, S, and Ss, as well as the short period site coefficient, Fa was obtained directly from the ATC website for the site latitude and longitude. Below -Grade Walls For preliminary design, reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at -rest" condition assumes no wall movement. The The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLJrC8SSfiJI Project 9 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 ALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for hydrostatic pressure on the walls. EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS EARTH COEFFICIENT FOR BACKFILL TYPE EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE EARTH PRESSURE FLUID DENSITY PRESSURE PRESSURE CONDITIONS (pcf) (psf) (psf) Active Structural Fill - 0.26 35 (0.26)S (35)H (Ka) Processed site fill — 0.36 40 (0.36)S (40)H At -Rest Structural Fill - 0.41 55 (0.41)S (55)H (Ko) Processed site fill — 0.53 58 (0.53)S (58)H Passive Structural Fill — 3.85 500 --- --- (Kp) Processed site fill — 2.75 300 --- --- Applicable conditions to the above include: • For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height • For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance • Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure • Horizontal backfill, compacted to 95 percent (native materials) and 98 percent (Structural Fill) of standard Proctor maximum dry density • No hydrostatic pressure acting on wall • No loading from compaction equipment • No loading from nearby footings or slabs • No dynamic loading • No safety factor included in soil parameters • Ignore passive pressure in frost zone Slope Stability/Excavation Considerations Because of the hard/dense glacial till on the slope, the slopes are anticipated to have adequate stability in their current configuration. However, foundation excavations conducted on the slope should be evaluated for stability during construction as the excavation begins. Vertical or near vertical cuts present a safety concern and should not be conducted unless a suitable temporary shoring system is installed. Temporary cut slopes should be planned for a maximum inclination of 2H:1 V, and may need to be shallower if loose sand layers are encountered deeper in the subsurface profile or signs of instability are noted. This will depend on the exact building placement and required excavation depths, which are currently unknown. The glacial till contains cobbles and boulders and therefore temporary cut slopes should be manually scaled with construction equipment to remove any large boulders or cobbles that could become partially The FOLVIdatiOn of a LJrCESSfUI Project 10 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E =GEOTECHNICAL dislodged during excavation and prone to migration downslope from construction vibration or rainfall, etc. It is imperative that Alpine Geotechnical' s engineering staff be present during all on - slope activity from the onset of work to observe the conditions and make recommendations since an excessively over steepened slope is difficult to correct once exposed. Drainage Site grading should provide effective drainage away from the structure during and after construction. Water permitted to pond next to the structure can result in greater soil movements. Finished grades should be positively sloped away from the foundation and backfill zones at a minimum slope of 5 percent over the 10 feet immediately adjacent to the foundation perimeter. Irrigation in the backfill zone should be strictly minimized or isolated from the backfill zone. Roof gutters with downspouts should be provided with discharge points beyond the backfill zone. If positive drainage is not provided during the life of the structure, then increased movement could develop. It is anticipated that the roofs will be connected with existing structures, and that internal roof drains will be used. These roof drains would ideally be connected to the project storm drainage system. Infiltration testing was conducted using a double -ring infiltrometer in accordance with ASTM D3385 at one location along the western part of the site (see Exploration Location Plan in Appendix A). The following table summarizes the results of the infiltration tests, complete test results are included in Appendix B. Test Location Depth of Test (Below existing grade) Stabilized Infiltration Rate (in/hr) DR-1 4 feet 6.8 Floor Slabs Lightly -loaded floor slabs founded on a layer of granular base course atop properly prepared subgrade are expected to have low risk of differential performance assuming earthwork is completed in accordance with this report. Following removal of all organic topsoil and fibrous materials, native soils may be used as interior/exterior foundation backfill. However, we recommend that a minimum thickness of 8 inches of Structural Fill be placed according to the Earthwork section of this report to establish the final slab subgrade elevation. The floor slab should be placed on a minimum 4-inch-thick leveling course comprised of well -graded V crushed base course material that meets all the requirements in the current edition of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. The slab base course should be compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Floor slabs should be structurally independent of any building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movement between the slab and foundation. Joints should be constructed or saw cut at regular intervals as recommended by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) to help control the location of cracking. It should be understood that The FOLVIdatiOn of a SUrC8SSfUI Project 11 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E GEOTECHNICAL differential settlement between the floor slabs and foundation could occur, and provisions to allow some independent movement should be included in the design. The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. Alpine Geotechnical can provide additional input in this regard if requested by the Structural Engineer. Earthwork For the specific recommended preparation sequence for building slab and foundation, please refer to the Site Preparation and Foundation Preparation sections of this report. To prepare the site for construction, all organic or previously placed fill materials, and any loose, soft, frozen or otherwise unsuitable materials should be removed from excavation areas. The extent of removal should be evaluated by Alpine Geotechnical personnel during construction. Excavated materials not suitable for use as backfill should be disposed of off -site. The exposed subgrade should be stable under the loading of construction equipment, thoroughly recompacted and tested by Alpine personnel prior to fill placement. Depending on the season of construction and other factors such as defined haul routes, instability may develop that will require subgrade stabilization. Our engineering staff should be consulted if this situation develops to provide stabilization recommendations, such as subexcavation and replacement, or geotextile/geogrid reinforcement. The on -site native inorganic soils are suitable for use as building backfill and required fill in landscaped areas outside of building limits if processed and placed according to this report. For fill areas beneath all exterior hardscaped features such as roadways, sidewalks, and exterior patios/stops we recommend support from Structural Fill to minimize undesirable settlement. Building interior backfill areas should be left 12 inches below slab elevation, to allow for the recommended 8 inches of Structural Fill and 4 inches of crushed base course beneath the concrete slab. Processing involves removal of all oversized material larger than 3 inches in diameter, and rejecting all otherwise unsuitable materials such as organic matter and construction debris. Special attention should be paid in areas where exterior porches or hardscape features cross the building backfill zone. If such areas are planned, we recommend Structural Fill be used exclusively for exterior backfill from foundation depth in order to reduce settlement potential. The near -surface clay and silt subgrade will be highly frost susceptible, and building plans should reflect this potential. Exterior flatwork areas or unheated buildings that are attached to heated spaces are particularly vulnerable to seasonal uplift due to frost heave and should be mitigated. Mitigation would include replacement of the upper 18 inches with a granular, non -frost susceptible fill material. A geotextile separation fabric should be placed atop the subgrade, followed by a thin layer (3 inch thick +/-) of clean, free -draining aggregate to serve as a capillary break followed by another layer of geotextile fabric. Structural Fill should be used to achieve final subgrade elevation. The FOLVIdatiOn of a SUCCeSSfUl Project 12 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E GEOTECHNICAL Structural Fill for building foundation support, soil replacement, and backfill should be developed from reliable source(s) approved by Alpine Geotechnical and meeting the following gradation and composition requirements: Screen or Sieve Size 3-inch 1 1/2-inch No. 4 No. 200 Percent Passing by Weight 100 85-100 30-60 10 maximum • The sand, gravel, and cobble -size particles comprising the fill must be hard, durable rock materials that will not degrade by moistening or under mechanical action of the compacting equipment; i.e. not shale or other clayey rock types. • The binder/fines fraction should have maximum Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index values of 25 and 10 percent respectively. • No frozen, organic, or other deleterious materials should be present in the fill aggregate. The soil's water content at the time of compaction should be in the range specified in the following table. Some moisture conditioning of on -site soils may be required to achieve adequate compaction; wetting or drying may be required depending on the natural soil moisture conditions at the time of construction. All fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts. The fill lifts should not exceed 12 inches in loose thickness for heavy compaction equipment, and 6 inches for smaller equipment such as large vibratory plates and jumping jacks used in foundation and utility excavations. Small vibratory plate compactors should be used in landscaped areas only. Typically, sheepsfoot compactors are best suited for fine-grained, cohesive soils and vibratory, smooth -drum compactors are needed for coarse -grained soils. All fill material should be compacted as specified in the table below. The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLJCC8SSfiJI Project 13 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E GEOTECHNICAL Fill Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil using Material Standard Effort (ASTM D-698) Type Minimum Percent Moisture content Compaction range, from optimum Below Foundations 98% Workable, generally within Structural Fill* 3% of optimum Interior Structure Backfill/Soil Replacement upper 12 inches 95% below slabs Building backfill (below Structural General Fill* Fill in building interior), utility trench 95% Processed backfill, and landscaped areas -3% to +3% existing site fill specific evaluation for each materials Below unimproved material 90 p �� landscaped areas * The gradation of a granular material may affect its stability and the moisture content required for proper compaction. Samples of all proposed fill materials should be submitted to Alpine Geotechnical for testing and approval prior to use. At a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, "Excavations" and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil/groundwater conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly enforced and if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances should the information provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Alpine Geotechnical is responsible for construction site safety or the contractor's activities. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of the construction operations. Our engineering staff will be available during construction to provide guidance, if requested in connection with agreed construction phase work by Alpine Geotechnical. Pavements It is anticipated that final subgrade elevations within the parking/access roadway areas will be above existing grades. Prior to placing any additional fill for pavement section construction, the existing clay/silt subgrade materials should be stable under rubber -tired construction equipment, including dump truck traffic. Areas that are shown to be unstable during this proof loading operation indicate that deeper subgrade deficiencies may exist and these areas should be repaired under the direction of our geotechnical engineer. The requirements of a suitable fill and its placement are discussed in the Earthwork section of this report. The Faunciatian of a S4accessful Project 14 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E GEOTECHNICAL Unsuitable material encountered below subgrade and/or subbase course level should be further undercut and replaced with Structural Fill based on observation by our geotechnical engineer. The upper 1 foot of subgrade material below the subexcavation depth should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D698. Localized instability of the native silt/clay subgrade may develop during construction when subjected to dump truck and repetitive equipment traffic, especially with higher moisture contents. These areas may need geogrid and geotextile fabric in order to provide adequate stability to compact the subbase course. A defined equipment haul route using geotextile and geogrid should be considered to minimize the potential for widespread subgrade instability to develop. The design approach used to develop the following tables for the flexible surfacing was based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Chapter 4 Low Volume Road Design. We used structural coefficients of the Montana Department of Transportation and our local experience. Specific information regarding anticipated vehicle types, axle loads and traffic volumes was not provided. In developing our recommendations, we have assumed that traffic will consist primarily of automobile traffic and a limited number of delivery trucks and trash removal trucks. The preliminary site plan estimates 200 parking spaces will be constructed. If heavier vehicle types or higher traffic volumes are expected, Alpine Geotechnical should be afforded the opportunity to review, and possibly revise, these assumptions and recommendations. The design of pavement thickness was based on the approach described above and on the following parameters: Stable subgrade as previously detailed and verified by proof -loading with rubber -tired construction equipment and dump truck traffic. Any required fill is placed in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. Flexible Pavement Design Catalog assuming a maximum of 5 ESAL's per day over the service life, based upon estimated 500 passenger vehicle trips per day and 10 garbage and/or delivery vehicle trips per day. A subgrade resilient modulus of 6,000 psi/inch was used based on a California Bearing Ratio of 4.1 %. A service life of 30 years. As a minimum, we suggest the following typical pavement section be considered: Typical Pavement Section Thickness Asphalt Concrete Crushed Base Traffic Area I Surface Course Course *Subbase Course Total Thickness Road and Parking Lot 3 inches 4 inches 8 inches 15 inches Standard Duty Road and Parking Lot 4 inches 6 inches 8 inches 18 inches Heavy -Duty *For Area C of the site, where glacial till subgrade is encountered, the pavement section can be constructed with just crushed base course and asphalt surface course atop glacial till subgrade compacted to 95% of a Standard Proctor The FOUndatiOrl of a LJrCessfUl Project 15 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 LLPI N E GEOTECHNICAL Options 1 and 2 are applicable for driveway and parking areas outside the building. The optional heavy-duty section is applicable for channelized delivery and/or garbage truck routes, which will perform better in areas with planned heavy loading. For the areas identified for garbage collection or delivery areas with heavier wheel loads, higher performance will be achieved through installation of a minimum 6-inch-thick Portland Cement Concrete Pavement as the surface course to support the short-term heavier loads from garbage trucks during loadout. We recommend our technical staff be afforded the opportunity to evaluate the existing subgrade materials during construction. We also recommend field density testing be performed of all fill placed to achieve final subgrade elevation as well as subbase and base course materials. Pavement sections based upon a more detailed pavement design could be provided if specific traffic loading, frequencies, and desired pavement design life are provided. The pavement section provided is based on design traffic loading as discussed and is not intended for nor should it be construed to be a construction platform either in full or partial section. Construction use is likely to exert heavier and higher frequency axle/wheel loads under adverse weather or channelized traffic conditions than assumed in this forgoing design. If construction access/haul load sections are desired, additional geotechnical input based on construction traffic will be required. Pavements subjected to higher traffic volumes than assumed above may require thicker pavement sections. The above section represents the minimum thickness for in-service use and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Aggregate base course should meet Montana Public Works Specification Section 02235 (6t" Edition) for Crushed Base Course, 1 '/2 inch or 3/4 inch minus and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum ASTM D698 dry density. Aggregate subbase course should meet Montana Public Works Specification Section 02234 (61" Edition) for Sub Base Course, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum ASTM D698 dry density. Long term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered the minimum: • Site grading at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements • The subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum '/4 inch per foot slope to promote proper surface drainage • Consider appropriate edge drainage and pavement underdrain systems • Apply joint sealant and seal cracks regularly Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided through an on -going pavement management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching) and global The FOLVIdatiOn of a LJrCESSfUI Project 16 Geotechnical Investigation Report Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana October 15, 2021 ALLPI N E -GEOTECHNICAL maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS Alpine Geotechnical should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Alpine Geotechnical also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, foundation preparation/construction, and backfilling of excavations and other earth -related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between boring locations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction has commenced. If variations appear, Alpine should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Alpine Geotechnical reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. The FOLVIdatiOn of a LJrCESSfUI Project 17 LPINE GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX A Project No. 21-938 ,CAL P I N E --GEOTECHNICAL 120 Round Stone Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 Exploration Location Plan Exhibit Scale NTS Junegrass Place Kalispell, Montana A-1 Date 09-17-21 PH. (406) 257-6479 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-1 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-16-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.210384,-114.330111 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- : 16.0' At Completion -T-: 16.0' ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass and CL-ML trace roots, dark brown, moist, soft 1.0'thick Silty CLAY with interbedded silt with sand, 3 4 brown, damp to moist, medium stiff to stiff 10 2'6"46" 7 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 67 4 18 7 7 9 3 22 5 8 9 2 CL Lean CLAY with laminated silt, pink/brown28, 5 7 I very moist, stiff, zones of interbedded silty 8 sand S 31 2 Silty SAND with interbedded sandy silt, 5 brown, wet, loose 3 6" of heaving sand after sampling 0 1 3 3 28 0 16 1 3 CL Lean CLAY with gravel, light brown, wet, 3 medium stiff 17 GM Silty GRAVEL with sand, brown, wet, dense 10 26 28 ............................................................. End of Boring DH-1 at 32.0' 5'-7' 14 7'6"-9'6" 13 10'-12' 12 15'-17' 7 20'-22' 4 25'-27' 4 30'-32' 43 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-2 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-16-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.210346,-114.329632 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- : 17.5' At Completion -T-: 17.5' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark ML brown, moistzsoft, 1.0'thick . ..................................... Silty CLAY with sand, brown, very moist, soft 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 to medium stiff 2" tephra layer at 4.5' Interbedded clay below 5.0' 28 24 T-5' 5'-7' 2 5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 CL Lean CLAY, pink/brown, very moist, medium 2 stiff 22 3 5 6 Zones of interbedded silty sand and silt below 12.0' 2 3 3 4 SM Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose �w 25 1 1 15'-17' 1 6 3 31 4 3 End of Boring DH-2 at 22.0' 20'-22' 1 8 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-3 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-15-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.210387,-114.328860 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- : 19.9' At Completion -T-: 19.9' ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass and CL-ML trace roots dark brown moist, soft,,1.0'thick Silty CLAY, light brown/tan, damp to moist, 6 6 medium stiff to very stiff 6 2'6"46" 11 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 5 5 2 9 5'-7' 10 4 6 7 4 I Interbedded silt/lean clay/silty sand below 10.0' 12 I 10'-12' 16 6 10 111 ....... .......... .......................... 3 ] 4 SSilty SAND, brown, moist, loose 9 4 5 3 Sample wet below 20.0' 29 3 p 4...................................................... End of Boring 131-1-3 at 22.0' 15'-17' 1 8 20'-22' 1 7 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-4 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-15-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.210323,-114.328118 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- : 18.9' At Completion -T-: 18.9' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 FILL. Fill, organic silt topsoil with surficial grass and CL-ML ..trace roots intermixed with gravel, brown, o moist, soft, 6" thick 5 o 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 SM ..................................................... Fill, silty gravel with sand, brown/tan, damp, loose, 6" thick ..................................................... Silty CLAY with sand, brown/tan, damp to moist, medium stiff Silty SAND with zones of silt, brown, damp, loose 4 14 6 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 6 8 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 2 3 4 4 4 1 1 10'-12' 1 7 2 5 15'-17' 9 4 5 ............................................................. 6 With gravel below 16.5' ............................................................. ML SILT with sand, brown, wet, soft 2 30 20'-22' 3 2 1 2 ............................................................. End of Boring DH-4 at 22.0' LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-5 Project: Junegrass Place Client: GMD Development Location- See exploration location map: 48.210047,-114.327228 Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- - N/E At Completion : N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DID DEPTH AND TEST DATA Project No.: 21-938 Date- 09-16-21 Elevation- Existing Logged By- Teal Gayner STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH I N C U R V E - o ............................................................. FILL Fill, organic silt topsoil with surficial grass, dark brown moist, soft,.8" thick . SM Fill, sandy silt trace gravel, light brown, damp, 2 soft, 1.3' thick 3 2'6"-4'6" 4 ..................................................... 3 ....... Silty. SAND, brown, damp, loose :: • 10 With ravel below 4.0' -5 21 ..ML.. g........................... so/ Gravelly SILT with sand, brown, moist, very 8 5'-5'11" 50+ 5" dense, with cobbles and boulders 50 Drill refusal at 8.5' 2 8'6"-8'6" 50+ 1" ..................................................... -10 End of Boring DH-5 at 8.6' -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: TP-6 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date: 09-17-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.209786,-114.326800 Elevation: Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1-: N/E At Completion -T-: N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E DEPTH AND TEST DATA - o ............................................................. OL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark MIL brown, moist, 8" thick Gravelly SILT with sand, light brown, moist, medium dense to dense, with cobbles and boulders -s ........................................................ End of Test Pit TP-6 at 6.0' -10 - is - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 ALPI N E -7 PAGE 1 OF 1GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: TP-7 Project: Junegrass Place Client: GMD Development Location: See exploration location map: 48.209490,-114.326710 Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1-: N/E At Completion: N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS USCS Description DEPTH AND TEST DATA - o ............................................................. OL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark MIL brown,. moist, 8" thick Gravelly SILT with sand, light brown, moist, medium dense to dense, with cobbles and boulders -s ....................................................... End of Test Pit TP-7 at 6.0' -10 - is -20 -25 - 30 - 35 Project No.- 21-938 Date: 09-17-21 Elevation: Existing Logged By: Teal Gayner STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NM DD DEPTH I N I C U R V E LPINE -GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-8 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-15-21 Location- See exploration location map: 48.209838,-114.327949 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- - N/E At Completion -T-: N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E DEPTH AND TEST DATA 0 10 30 50 OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass and = = ....... . trace roots, dark brown soft moist, , 1.5' thick 2 CL-ML Silty CLAY with sand, brown/tan, damp, soft 5 2'4' 4 2 00 2 3 3 ... SM ........................ ...................... Silty SAND with interbedded silty clay, 15 5'-7' 7 4 brown/tan, moist, loose to medium dense z With zones of silt below 7.0' 7 T-9' 6 3 3 3 10 1 4 10'-12' 5 3 2 3 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 3 4 5 With gravel below 17.0' 8 7 16 1 ............................................................. End of Boring DH-8 at 22.0' 15'-17' 1 8 20'-22' 1 15 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-9 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-15-21 Location- See exploration location map: 48.209738,-114.328581 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1: 19.2' At Completion -T-: 19.2' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark CL-ML brown, moist soft, 1.0'thick .....z..................................... 0 4 2 2 2 Silty CLAY with sand, brown, moist to very moist, medium stiff to stiff 9 2'-4 4 5 00 00 0 0 3 3 4 5 3 4 6 6 13 20 5'-7' T-9' 7 10 10 3 4 5 7 24 10'-12' 9 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 i re A- 3 SM.. 3 Silty SAND, brown, very moist to wet, loose 16 15'-17' 8 5 5 3 4 5 5 24 1 1 20'-22' 1 9 1 2 31 6 1 ............................................................. End of Boring DH-9 at 27.0' 25'-27' 1 8 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-10 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date- 09-16-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.209746,-114.329670 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- : 19.0' At Completion -T-: 19.0' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E DEPTH AND TEST DATA 0 10 30 50 OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark CL-ML brown, moist soft, 1.0'thick Silty CLAY, brown, moist, medium stiff 3 17 2'6"46" 5 2 2" tephera layer at 3.0' 00 3 4 5 2 3 CL Lean CLAY with interbedded silt and silty 20 22 5'-7' 7 4 sand, brown, moist, medium stiff 4 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 i re A- 2 3 5 5 mm-��Eu- S 1 Silty SAND, brown, very moist to wet, very 25 2 loose 2 2 34 1 2 End of Boring DH-10 at 22.0' 15'-17' 1 3 20'-22' 1 3 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-11 Project: Junegrass Place Client: GMD Development Location- See exploration location map: 48.210147,-114.329619 Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- - N/E At Completion : N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS USCS Description DEPTH AND TEST DATA Project No.: 21-938 Date- 09-15-21 Elevation- Existing Logged By- Teal Gayner STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NM DID DEPTH I N I C U R V E 0 ............................................................. OIL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass and ....... . trace roots, dark brown moist, soft, 1.5' thick CL-ML Silty CLAY with sand, light brown/tan, moist, 4 stiff 11 3 4 3 5 4 s 7 a End of Boring DH-11 at 7.0' -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 15 2'6"46" 1 8 5'-7' 1 12 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-12 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date: 09-15-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.210093,-114.328893 Elevation: Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1-: N/E At Completion -T-: N/E ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH N 10 C U 30 R V E 50 Figure 0 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 7 e................................................... i0 i5 20 25 30 35 A-13 OIL CL-ML Organic SILT topsoil wiht surficial grass and trace roots, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.0' thick Silty CLAY with sand, light brown/tan, damp to moist, medium stiff to stiff End of Boring DH-12 at 7.0' 3 8 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 7 12 PAGE 1 OF 1 ALPI GEOTECHNICAL N E LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-13 Project: Junegrass Place Client: GMD Development Location- See exploration location map: 48.210114,-114.327926 Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- - N/E At Completion : N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, SAMPLERS USCS Description DEPTH AND TEST DATA 0 FI LL Fill, organic silt topsoil with surficial grass and trace roots, dark brown moist, soft 1.0' thick ......... . Fill, silt with sand intermixed with gravel, 4 brown, moist, very stiff 8 a 57 NM I DID Project No.: 21-938 Date- 09-15-21 Elevation- Existing Logged By- Teal Gayner STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH I N C U R V E L-=�00rX-1ffJ1 : Mu- ............................................................ 5 3 SM Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose 4 3 4 3 End of Boring DH-13 at 7.0' -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 4'6"-6'6" 1 7 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-14 Project: Junegrass Place Client: GMD Development Location- See exploration location map: 48.209908,-114.327500 Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- - N/E At Completion : N/E Project No.: 21-938 Date- 09-15-21 Elevation- Existing Logged By- Teal Gayner ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DID DEPTH N C U R V E DEPTH AND TEST DATA - o ............................................................. FI LL Fill, organic silt topsoil with surfical grass and roots intermixed with gravel, dark brown, moist, soft, 1. 0' thick 7 3 3 3 SM Fill, silty gravel with sand, brown/tan, moist, 3 2 loose ..................................................... Silty SAND, brown/tan, moist, loose - 5 .... ......................... jr� 3 P-SM Poorly graded SAND with silt, brown, moist, 3 2 loose 3 End of Boring DH-14 at 7.0' - 10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 5'-7' 1 5 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: TP-15 Project: Junegrass Place Project No.: 21-938 Client: GMD Development Date: 09-17-21 Location: See exploration location map: 48.209517,-114.327131 Elevation: Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1-: N/E At Completion -T-: N/E ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E DEPTH AND TEST DATA -o OL Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark MIL brown,.moist, 8" thick Gravelly SILT with sand, light brown, moist, medium dense to dense, with cobbles and boulders ..................................................... -s End of Test Pit TP-15 at 4.0.' -10 - is - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 ALPI N E -16 PAGE 1 OF 1GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-16 Project: 1079 North Meridian Road Project No.: 20-926 Client: Homeword, Inc. Date- 07-15-20 Location: See exploration location map: 48.209935,-114329785 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- - 16.0' At Completion -T-: 17.8' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 OIL Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, soft, = = 1811 8" thick CL-ML ..................................................... Silty CLAY with laminated sand, brown, very moist, medium stiff to soft, with rust colored mottling -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 I I 5'-7' 6 2 I I 10'-12' 9 3 2 15'-17' 7 3 4 Sample wet at 16.0' 5 2 1 2 3 End of Boring DH-1 at 22.0' 20'-22' 1 3 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-17 Project: 1079 North Meridian Road Project No.: 20-926 Client: Homeword, Inc. Date- 07-15-20 Location: See exploration location map: 48.209806,-114.329157 Elevation- Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By- Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1- : 16.0' At Completion -T-: 16.0' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH SAMPLERS AND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E 10 30 50 0 VIIOIL Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, soft, CL-ML 12" thick ..................................................... Silty CLAY with sand, brown, very moist, stiff, with rust colored mottling -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 i re A- 3 5 5 5 4 ] ................................................ Silty CLAY, brown, very moist, stiff 5 7 �w 2 15'-17' 7 3 4 Sample wet at 16.0' 5 1 1 2 1 1 ............................................................. End of Boring 131-1-2 at 22.0' 20'-22' 1 3 LPI N E GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-18 Project: 1079 North Meridian Road Project No.- 20-926 Client: Homeword, Inc. Date: 07-15-20 Location: See exploration location map: 48.209982,-114.328348 Elevation: existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Teal Gayner Drill Rig: CME 45B Depth to Water> Initial Q:1-: 21.8' At Completion: 21.8' ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E DEPTH AND TEST DATA 0 10 30 50 OIL. Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, soft, CL-ML 6" thick ..................................................... Silty CLAY with sand, brown, moist, stiff -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - 30 - 35 I I 5'-7' 11 6 3 SM.. 4 Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose 10'-12' 8 4 5 I I 15'-17' 7 5 4 20'-22' 11 6 5 3 M.L. .. . SILT with laminated sand, brown, wet, stiff End of Boring DH-3 at 22.0' ALPI N E GEOTECHNICAL ALPINE GEOTECHNICAL /_1»=1 I,IQ/:II=3 Particle Size Analysis _ o00 co N � � ik ik tk tk 3k 3k 2k 2k 100 90 80 70 (Y LLI 60 I I I z W z 50 W � li li li li li li li li li li li i li li li LU W 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 C,RAINI S17F - mm % +3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay O 0 0 0 1 1 22 76 ❑ 0 13 12 7 8 7 53 ❑ 0 0 1 1 35 55 8 O 0 0 0 1 1 72 26 ❑ 0 0 18 9 13 43 17 SOIL DATA SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTHNO. (ft.) Material Description USCS O BULK 5690 2.0 Silty CLAY with sand CL-ML ❑ TP-6 5658 4.0 Gravelly SILT with sand ML ZAI DH-14 5687 5.0 Poorly graded SAND with silt SP-SM O DH-4 5651 6.0 Silty SAND SM ❑ DH-8 5665 20.0 Silty SAND with gravel SM Client: GMD Development AProject: Junegrass Place =ALPINE GEOTECHNICAL Project No.: 21-938 Figure B-1 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils O� O� ■ CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH SOIL DATA NATURAL SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY SYMBOL SOURCE NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX USCS • BULK 5690 2.0 17 22 5 CL-ML ■ DH-10 5674 5.0 20 17 29 12 CL DH-2 5641 10.0 22 17 32 15 CL SOIL DATA NATURAL SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY SYMBOL SOURCE NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX USCS • BULK 5690 2.0 17 22 5 CL-ML ■ DH-10 5674 5.0 20 17 29 12 CL DH-2 5641 10.0 22 17 32 15 CL LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL Curve No.: 5690 Project No.: 21-938 Project: Junegrass Place Client: GMD Development Source of Sample: BULK Sample Number: 5690 Remarks: Depth: 2.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Description: Silty CLAY with sand Classifications - USCS: CL-ML Nat. Moist. = Liquid Limit = 22 135 130 125 110 105 Date: 09-17-21 AASHTO: A-4(1) Sp.G. = 2.65 Plasticity Index = 5 % < No.200 = 76 % TEST RESULTS Maximum dry density = 114.9 pcf Optimum moisture = 13.6 % 10 12 14 16 Water content, % Alnine Geotechnical_ 18 20 22 24 Figure B-3 BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT ASTM D1883-14 200 CBR at 95% Max. Density = 4.1 6 5 160 4 m U y a 3 v 120 c 2 y 100 103 106 109 112 115 y Molded Density (pcf) c ° 0.5 iu 80 0.4 r2 0 0.3 40 3 fn 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 24 48 96 Penetration Depth (in.) Elapsed Time (hrs) Molded Soaked CBR (%) Linearity Max. Surcharge Density Percent of Moisture Density Percent of Moisture Correction Swell (Pcf) Max. Dens. (%) (pcf) Max. Dens. (%) 0.10 in. 0.20 in. (in) (Ibs.) (�) 1 0 103.1 89.7 14.0 103.1 89.7 18.3 3.1 3.0 0.000 27.64 0 2 ❑ 110.6 96.3 14.0 110.6 96.2 15.5 4.2 5.6 0.033 27.64 0 3 El 111.7 97.2 14.0 111.7 97.2 14.9 4.3 4.9 0.101 27.64 0 Material Description Max. Optimum USCs Dens. Moisture LL PI (Pcf) (%) Silty CLAY with sand CL-ML 114.9 13.6 22 5 Project No: 21-938 Test Description/Remarks: Project: Junegrass Place Test run saturated Source of Sample: BULK Depth: 2.0 Sample Number: 5690 CBR points 2 and 3 are corrected per ASTM D1883 Date Sampled: 09-17-21 Date Received: 9-17-21 ALPINE Figure B-4 - _GEOTECHNICAL for 0.10 in. Penetration 25 blows 56 blows 10 blows �� CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT -0.3 Water Added 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7 c U) 2.2 N N 0_ 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7 100 1000 10000 Applied Pressure - psf Natural Dry Dens. (pcf) LL PI Sp. Gr. Overburden (psf) Pc (psf) Cc Cs Swell Press. (psf) Clpse. % e° Sat. Moist. 83.5 % 120.2 % 103.6 29 12 12.774 1668 0.08 0.02 0.0 0.671 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO Lean CLAY with zones of silt CL Project No. 21-938 Client: GUID Development Project: Junegrass Place Source of Sample: DH-10 Depth: 5.0 Sample Number: 5674 Remarks: 6.3'-6.4' Figure B-5 LPINE GEOTECHNICAL SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA Client: GMD Development Project: Junegrass Place Project Number: 21-938 Location: DH-10 Depth: 5.0 Sample Number: 5674 Material Description: Lean CLAY with zones of silt Liquid Limit: 29 Plasticity Index: 12 USCS: CL Figure No.: B-5 Testing Remarks: 6.3'-6.4' NATURAL MOISTURE VOID RATIO AFTER TEST Wet w+t = 1243.80 g. Spec. Gr. = 2.774 Wet w+t = 418.50 g. Dry w+t = 1077.80 g. Est. Ht. Solids = 0.598 in. Dry w+t = 387.20 g. Tare Wt. = 255.70 g. Init. V.R. = 0.671 Tare Wt. = 258.40 g. Moisture = 20.2 % Init. Sat. = 83.5 % Moisture = 24.3 % UNIT WEIGHT Height = 1.000 in. Diameter = 2.500 in. Weight = 160.50 g. DryDens. = 103.6 pcf TEST START Height = 1.000 in. Diameter = 2.500 in. End -Of -Load Summary Dry Wt. = 128.80 g. Pressure Final Deformation Cv Void (psf) Dial (in.) (in.) (ft.2/day) Ca Ratio % Strain start 0.00230 0.00000 0.671 250 0.00310 0.00080 0.546 0.670 0.1 Comprs. 500 0.00590 0.00360 0.924 0.665 0.4 Comprs. water 0.00620 0.00390 0.664 0.4 Comprs. 1000 0.01010 0.00780 0.670 0.658 0.8 Comprs. 2000 0.01890 0.01660 1.151 0.643 1.7 Comprs. 4000 0.03040 0.02810 1.076 0.624 2.8 Comprs. 8000 0.04440 0.04210 0.833 0.601 4.2 Comprs. 4000 0.04000 0.03770 0.608 3.8 Comprs. 2000 0.03500 0.03270 0.616 3.3 Comprs. 1000 0.03200 0.02970 0.621 3.0 Comprs. 500 0.03000 0.02770 0.625 2.8 Comprs. 250 0.02800 0.02570 0.628 2.6 Comprs. Compression index (Cc), psf = 0.08 Preconsolidation pressure (Pp), psf = 1668 Void ratio at Pp (em) = 0.648 Swell index (Cs) = 0.02 Clpse. (ss), % = 0.0 Aloine Geotechnical 9/21 /2021 A-LPI NE GEOTECHNICAL Client: GMD Development Project: Junegrass Place Report of: Infiltration Rate of Soils in Filed Using Double Ring Infiltrometer ASTM D3385 Final Stablized Infiltration Rate: 6.8 in/hr DR-1 (see attached map) Infiltration Rate vs. Cumulative Time 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 t u 60.0 v 50.0 c .m 40.0 w 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 Date: 9/17/2021 Project #: 21-938 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 Cumulative Time (min) --*--Inner Ring --*--Annular Ring ALPINE GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX C UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests Group Symbol Group Name Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu >> 4 and 1 < Cc < 31 GW Well -graded gravel F More than 50% of Less than 5% fines ° Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F coarse fraction retained on Gravels with Fines: fro Fines classify as ML or MH GM F,°, Silty gravel Coarse Grained Soils: 4 sieve More than 12% fines ° Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F ° " More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu >> 6 and 1 < Cc < 3 E SW Well -graded sand' 50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines ° Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E SP Poorly graded sand' fraction passes Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand °H1 No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines ° Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand °H1 PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line J CL Lean clay K,L,M Inorganic: PI < 4 or plots below "A" line J ML Silt K,L,M Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M," Fine -Grained Soils: Organic: < 0.75 OL Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,o 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay K,L,M Inorganic: Silts and Clays: PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,P Liquid limit 50 or more Organic: < 0.75 OH Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L, M,° Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve " If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles ' If soil contains >— 15% gravel, add "with gravel' to group name. or boulders, or both" to group name. j If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. ° Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well -graded K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel with silt, GW-GC well -graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly gravel," whichever is predominant. graded gravel with silt, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay. L If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" ° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well -graded to group name. sand with silt, SW -SC well -graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded M If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay "gravelly" to group name. z (Dso) " PI >— 4 and plots on or above "A" line. E Cu = D6o/D,o Cc = ° PI < 4 or plots below "A" line. D10 x D60 P PI plots on or above "A" line. F If soil contains >> 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. ° PI plots below "A" line. ° If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC-SM. 60 For classification of fine-grained ' soils and fine-grained fraction7 50 of coarse -grained soils ``1� ' ` �0 Equation of "A" - line �J , aP IL Horizontal at PI-4 to LL=25.5. ,�� X 40 then PI=0.73 (ILL-20) 0� QEquation of T" - line o� Z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, ,/ Gx 30 then PI=0.9 �0 20 G a ,, _j ,' MH or OH IL 10 4 - CLL " ML or OL 0 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard Penetration Standard Penetration Compressive or N-value (SS) Consistency or N-value (SS) Relative Density Strength, Qu, psf Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. a 500 0-1 Very Soft 0-3 Very Loose 500 — 1,000 2-4 Soft 4-9 Loose 1,000 — 2,000 4-8 Medium Stiff 10 — 29 Medium Dense 2,000 — 4,000 8 - 15 Stiff 30 — 50 Dense 4,000 — 8,000 15 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense 8,000+ a 30 Hard RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Major Component Particle Size of other constituents Dry Weight of Sample Trace r 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15 — 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) Modifier 230 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm) Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75 to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Term(s) Percent of of other constituents Dry Weight Trace < 5 With 5-12 Modifier > 12 PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Term Plasticity Index Non -plastic 0 Low 1-10 Medium 11-30 High > 30