I2. Reso 5861 - Village HeightsPLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager
FROM: Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
Planning Department
201 1" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispelLeom/planning
SUBJECT: KPP-18-01 — Village Heights Preliminary Plat Request
MEETING DATE: April 2, 2018
BACKGROUND: A request from PTA Development for a major subdivision of a 1.43-acre parcel
into two lots 40,401, and 21,927 square feet in size. The application was reviewed in accordance with
Section 28.2.06 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. The property is located within the RA-2
Zoning District, which provides for commercial office development. Since the lot is part of a
previous subdivision that created more than five lots, a major subdivision application was required.
The land use of the parcel being created is not known at this time, but will have to comply with the
RA-2 Zoning requirements and will likely develop as neighborhood commercial/medical office.
The property is located at 105 Village Loop and developed with the new PTA office building. The
property can be legally described as Lot 4B of the Amended Plat of Lots 4A and 4B, Village Heights
in the SW4 SW4 in Section 32, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County,
Montana.
The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing March 13, 2018, to consider the
application request. Staff presented staff report KPP-18-01 providing details of the proposal and
evaluation. Staff reported that the proposed preliminary plat was consistent with the subdivision
regulations, the zoning, and the growth policy. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the
staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat be
approved, subject to 11 conditions.
During the public comment portion of the hearing, a neighboring property owner spoke regarding the
amount of traffic that could be expected from the subdivision and continued commercial development
in the area, which was not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. There being no further
testimony, the public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KPP-18-01
as findings of fact, and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be
approved, subject to 11 conditions. Board discussion concluded that the preliminary plat was
appropriate, and the motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve Resolution
5861, a resolution approving a request from PTA Development for major subdivision Preliminary
Plat KPP-18-01, a major subdivision preliminary plat with eleven (11) conditions of approval, located
in Lot 4B of the Amended Plat of Lots 4A and 4B, Village Heights in the SW4 SW4 in Section 32,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Approval of the request will allow the applicant to proceed with development
of the site, which in turn will have positive fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5861
March 13, 2018, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes
Staff Report
Application Materials & Maps
Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.5861
A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
VILLAGE HEIGHTS, DESCRIBED AS LOT 4B OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 4A
AND 4B, VILLAGE HEIGHTS IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M.,
FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA.
WHEREAS, PTA Development, the owner of the certain real property described above, has
petitioned for approval of the Subdivision Plat of said property; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on
March 13, 2018 on the proposal and reviewed Subdivision Report #KPP-18-01
issued by the Kalispell Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission has recommended
approval of the Preliminary Plat of Village Heights subject to certain conditions and
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Kalispell at its regular council meeting of April 2,
2018, reviewed the Kalispell Planning Department Report #KPP-18-01, reviewed the
recommendations of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, and
found from the Preliminary Plat, and evidence, that the subdivision is in the public
interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, MONTANA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Findings of Fact contained in Kalispell Planning Department Report
#KPP-18-01 are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact of the city council.
SECTION 2. That the application of PTA Development for approval of the Preliminary
Plat of Village Heights, Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application
submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional
conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council.
2. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of
approval.
3. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and
approval a stormwater report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of
the current city standards for design and construction.
4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department, prior to construction,
an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents
submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for
Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities.
5. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating that all new
infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or a proper bond has been accepted
for unfinished work.
6. A letter shall be obtained from the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director approving a
landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials within Village Loop. The
approved landscape plan shall be implemented or a cash in lieu payment for installation of
the street trees and groundcover be provided to the Kalispell Parks and Recreation
Department.
7. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. A letter
from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be obtained stating that the required
easements are being shown on the final plat.
8. The developer shall comply with all recommendations of the geological investigation report
completed by Alpine Geotechnical.
9. The following statement shall appear on the final plat: "The undersigned hereby grants unto
each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, providing or offering to
provide telephone, telegraph, electric power, gas, cable television, water or sewer service to the
public, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance, repair, and
removal of their lines and other facilities, in, over, under, and across each area designated on
this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever."
Developer's Signature
10. All utilities shall be installed underground.
11. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix
immediately after development.
SECTION 3. Upon proper review and filing of the Final Plat of said subdivision in the
office of the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder, said premises shall be a
subdivision of the City of Kalispell.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL THIS 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
Mark Johnson
Mayor
ATTEST:
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC
City Clerk
VILLAGE HEIGHTS
REQUEST FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT
STAFF REPORT #KPP-18-01
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 2, 2018
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a
request for preliminary plat approval of a two lot commercial subdivision at 105 Village
Loop Drive. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell Planning Board for
March 13, 2018 beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. A
recommendation from the Kalispell Planning Board will be forwarded to Kalispell City
Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A request from PTA Development for a major
subdivision of a 1.43-acre commercial parcel into two commercial lots .93 and .50-acres
in size. The property is located within the RA-2 Zoning District, which is a multi-
family/office zone. The property is located at 105 Village Loop and developed with the
new PTA office building on the west end of the existing parcel. The proposed subdivision
will create a new lot on the eastern portion of the existing parcel where the property is
undeveloped grasslands. The parcel to be subdivided is Lot 4B of the Village Heights
Subdivision. From a practical standpoint, the proposed subdivision will not create any
additional impact in the area. The lot being subdivided is existing and can be developed
at anytime. In its current state the lot would likely develop with multiple commercial
office buildings under single ownership. Now that the lot is being subdivided into a two
smaller parcels, you would expect the same amount of commercial development, just
with the potential for multiple ownerships.
Since the lot is part of a previous subdivision that created more than five lots a major
subdivision application is required. The land use of the parcel being created is not
known at this time, but will have to comply with the RA-2 Zoning requirements and will
likely develop neighborhood commercial/medical office. The application will be reviewed
in accordance with Section 28.2.06 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
A. Petitioner and Owners: PTA Development
690 Meridian Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Location: The property is located at 105 Village Loop Drive and can be legally
described as Lot 4B of the Amended Plat of Lots 4A and 413, Village Heights in the
SW4 SW4 in Section 32, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead
County, Montana.
C. Size:
Total area: 1.43 acres
Lot IA: .93 acres
Lot 1B: .50 acre
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is currently developed with
a new PTA office building. The portion of the subject property to be subdivided is
currently undeveloped grasslands.
The property is within the RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) Zone. The Kalispell
Zoning Regulations state that the RA-2 Zone is 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".
E. Adjacent Land Uses: The surrounding land uses consist of the following:
North: Historic Bruyer Granary
East: Undeveloped lot
South: Undeveloped lots and commercial office
West: Commercial office and Whitefish Stage Road
F. Adjacent Zoning: The zoning surrounding the subject property is as follows:
North: RA-2
East: RA-2
South: B-1
West: RA-1
G. Relation to Growth Policy Map: The subject property lies within the jurisdiction
of the Kalispell City Growth Policy. The Growth Policy Future Land Use Map
designates this area as "Urban Residential," which is an appropriate land use
category for the RA-2 Zone as it would permit limited mixed uses.
H. Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
Evergreen
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Gas:
NorthWestern Energy
Telephone:
Centurylink
Schools:
School District #5, Edgerton elementary
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
This application is reviewed as a major subdivision in accordance with state statutory
review criteria and the Kalispell City Subdivision Regulations. Note, that while only one
additional lot is being created, the parent lot (Lot 4B) of the Village Height Subdivision
PJ
lot is part of a previous subdivision that created more than five lots, necessitating a
major subdivision application.
A. Effects on Health and Safety:
Fire: The property would be considered to be at low risk of fire because any
building constructed within the subdivision would be built in accordance with the
International Fire Code and have access which meets city standards. The property
does not have steep slopes or woody fuels. Hydrants will be required to be placed
in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and approved by
the Fire Chief.
Flooding: There are no areas within the 100-year floodplain on the site pursuant
to Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 30029C 1810J.
Access: Access to the new lot being created will be via Village Loop to the south.
Village Loop is an improved city local street, which provides adequate access to
the subject property for general service and in case of emergency.
B. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: The subdivision is not located in
known big game habitat and the property is not considered suitable habitat for
other significant wildlife since the subject property is within an urban area and
currently surrounded by development. Local and migratory bird species and small
mammals common to the area will not be affected by this action.
C. Effects on the Natural Environment: The subject property exists in an
established neighborhood commercial area of Kalispell. The site is level and is not
in or near a designated 100-year floodplain per Flood Insurance Rate Map
Number 30029C 1810J. The proposed subdivision is approximately 200 feet away
from the slope running down to Village Greens that has had slope failure in some
locations. Alpine Geotechnical completed a slope stability evaluation for the area
where the property is being subdivided. Alpine Geotechnical concluded that the
slope is reasonably stable in its present form. However, they did recommend a 50'
setback to be maintained from the slop crest to building areas as a best practice
for site development in the sensitive area. The proposed subdivision is
approximately 200 feet from the slope edge, so the 50' setback is not an issue.
Due to the sensitivity of the area, and as recommended by Alpine Geotechnical,
staff recommends that a geotechnical engineer sign -off on an development of the
project site in order to provide input into storm drainage systems and assess their
potential impact to slope stability.
D. Effects on Local Services:
Sewer and Water: The City of Kalispell provides sewer to the subject property and
Evergreen provides the water service. The existing sewer and water service lines
servicing the surrounding development are accessible and can be extended to the
property at any time.
Access and Roads: Access to the new lot being created will be via Village Loop to
the south. Village Loop is an improved city street, which provides adequate access
to the subject property. Any development of the property that creates 300 or more
3
vehicle trip per day will require a traffic impact study prior to construction. The
traffic study evaluates the impacts the development has on the traffic system and
indicates mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service.
As mentioned previously, the traffic impact of this subdivision will be negligible
because the amount of commercial development will remain the same. In its
current state, the lot would likely develop with multiple commercial office
buildings under single ownership. Now that the lot is being subdivided into a two
smaller parcels, you would expect the same amount of commercial development,
just with the potential for multiple ownerships.
Schools: This subdivision is commercial in nature and will not have an impact on
the enrollment of the school district.
Parks: Commercial lots are exempt from providing park land or paying the cash in
lieu fee.
Police Protection: The property is served by the Kalispell Police Department. It is
not anticipated that this subdivision will significantly impact the service provided
by the Police Department.
Fire Protection: The property is within the service district of the Kalispell Fire
Department. It is not anticipated that this subdivision will significantly impact the
service provided by the Fire Department.
Refuse Disposal: Solid waste will be provided by the City of Kalispell. No significant
increased impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed subdivision.
Medical Services: Emergency medical service is provided by the Kalispell Regional
Medical Center; ambulance and life flight services are also available.
E. Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: This subdivision
is in the urban area of Kalispell and the area has been developed to an urban
density. Future development of this site will have no effect on agricultural
activities in the valley.
F. Relation to the Kalispell Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Plan -It 2035
goals state that new commercial development should occur in areas were public
water and sewer are available. In addition, the plan encourages the expansion of
existing commercial districts, especially infill projects. The growth policy supports
this subdivision because it is within an under-utilized commercial area and city
with water and sewer available.
Additionally, the Kalispell Growth Policy states as a goal in the Healthcare chapter
to "Provide for a satellite area within the city where healthcare related
development can occur." Although the area was not specifically designed for
healthcare, the uses that are tending to develop in the area are medical related
and it is likely that the creation of this lot will result in additional medical office
space of some manner.
0
G. Compliance with Zoning: The property is zoned RA-2, Residential Apartment
Office. Although a use is not proposed on the new parcel at this time, any use
that will be developed on the site will have to comply with the RA-2 Zoning
requirements. The minimum required lot area for a parcel within the RA-2 Zone is
6,000 square feet with a minimum 50 feet lot width. Lot IA is proposed to be
40,401 square feet in size with a lot width of 173 feet and Lot 1B is proposed to be
21,927 square feet with a lot width of 92 feet. Accordingly, both lots far exceed the
minimum lot size and width requirements.
H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This subdivision
complies with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and no variances have been
requested.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
staff report KPP-18-01as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the preliminary plat of Village Heights be approved subject to the conditions listed
below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the
application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as
any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the
city council.
2. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the
date of approval.
3. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review
and approval a stormwater report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the
requirements of the current city standards for design and construction.
4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department, prior to
construction, an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a
copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental
Quality for the General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with
Construction Activities.
5. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating
that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or a proper
bond has been accepted for unfinished work.
6. A letter shall be obtained from the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director
approving a landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials
within Village Loop. The approved landscape plan shall be implemented or a cash
in lieu payment for installation of the street trees and groundcover be provided to
the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department.
5
7. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat.
A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be obtained stating that
the required easements are being shown on the final plat.
8. The developer shall comply with all recommendations of the geological
investigation report completed by Alpine Geotechnical.
Am
The following statement shall appear on the final plat: "The undersigned hereby
grants unto each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or private,
providing or offering to provide telephone, telegraph, electric power, gas, cable
television, water or sewer service to the public, the right to the joint use of an
and removal of their lines and
ea designated on this plat as
easement for the construction, maintenance, repair,
other facilities, in, over, under, and across each a
"Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever."
Developer's Signature
10. All utilities shall be installed underground.
11. All areas disturbed during development shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix
immediately after development.
C.
N105 Village Loop, Kalispell
a
3
w
w
r
VELVA DR
m
BRUYER WAY C
r �
o w
i
i; 14
(e� M
JOIN
z
BUFFALO STAGE
w
Q
J
f--
PHEASANT RUN
DWY
VILLAGE LOOP
DWY
W EVERGREEN DR
Mailing List
Assessor# 0502791
Subject Property
215ft. Mailing List
RITZMgN L.N
TREVINO DR
hO
O
OSO,S,
�
2
C'
C
9G
N
�L
F
So��RSF
'P r
STAFFORD ST 4�
C >
D Q
O �
= w
� z
r =
N U
n O
A DWY SUSSEX DR
Kalispell Planning Dept.
Date: Feb 21 st, 2018
Fi1ePath:1\2018\jarod\105 _ e&�'D 0 300 600
n�ovran,� Feet
40% R
vvvww. ae2s. com
February 21, 2018
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
201 1 st Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Preliminary Plat Application
Village Heights Professional Center
Dear Sirs:
Please find the following items enclosed for your review of a preliminary plat for division of Lot 1
of Village Heights Professional Center Subdivision.
- A signed preliminary plat application
- A review fee in the amount of $1250 ($1000 + $125 * 2 lots)
- A DVD with copies of all application materials
- Four 24"x36" copies of the preliminary plat
- One 11"x17" copy of the preliminary plat
- A geotechnical report
- An infiltration testing report
- A slope analysis report
Requirements for a legal description and a vicinity map are met by the elements on the
preliminary plat.
Project Description
The purpose of this subdivision is to divide Lot 1 of Village Heights Professional Center
subdivision (VHPC) into two lots. Lot 1A is intended for development for a professional office
facility. Lot 1 B will remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No zone change is
proposed.
The City of Kalispell approved engineering plans for Lot 1A site development in 2017, and site
and building construction are in progress. Utilities will consist of:
Municipal water and sewer provided via service lines to be installed in Village Loop.
Gas, electric, and communications provided by relevant agencies
On -site storm water management.
A sewer main extension has been installed near the west boundary to serve properties north of
the subject property.
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
103 1st Avenue West Suite 300 9 Dickinson, ND 58601 • (t) 101-225-9636 • (f] Y01-225-9615
Preliminary Plat Contents
Requirements for contents of the preliminary plat as outlined in Appendix A are addressed as
follows:
- The preliminary plat is drawn on a 24"x36" sheet at a scale of 1" = 20'.
A. Name and location of the subdivision, and a scale bar and north arrow are shown on the
face of the plat.
B. Relevant property corner monuments are shown.
C. The subdivision boundary and dimensions are shown.
D. Proposed lot numbers are shown.
E. Existing ground contours are shown at 1-foot intervals.
F. Existing streets and proposed curb cut locations are shown.
G. Existing and proposed utilities and associated easements are shown. A 10-foot Public
Road and Utility Easement, sometimes referred to as a "Roadway Reservation" is
provided along the west side of the property adjoining Whitefish Stage Road.
H. No parks or areas are proposed for public or common use.
I. No buildings, structures, or improvements will be retained on the subject property, other
than the overhead power on the north and other utilities on the west.
J. The subject property is not subject to a 100-year floodplain.
K. No significant natural features exist on the subject property.
Preliminary Plat Supplements
Supplements to the preliminary plat as outlined in Subdivision Regulations, Appendix A, are
addressed as follows:
A. Vicinity map
1. Ingress and egress locations are shown as curb cuts on the plat.
2. The nearest wetland -type habitat is located at least 400 feet east of the subject
property. The Stillwater River is situated 3000 feet east of the subject property.
3. Adjoining parcels, together with owner names and addresses, are shown on the plat.
4. Names of adjoining subdivisions and COSs are shown.
5. Existing and proposed improvements and land uses on the subject property are
shown.
6. Existing zoning of the subject and adjoining properties is shown.
B. Common Area Management Plan. No such plan is necessary or proposed.
C. Environmental Assessment. This development is exempt from the requirement for an
environmental assessment because it is within the Kalispell Growth Policy boundary
area.
D. Phased Projects. No phasing is proposed.
Please contact me via email at steve.rude(d-)ae2s.com or by phone at 701-690-3698.
Sincerely,
Steve Rude, PLS, CFedS
Land Surveyor
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
MOAY"A
Planning Department
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/ planning
MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
FEE SCHEDULE: FEE ATTACHED
Major Subdivision (6 or more lots) $1,000 + $125/lot
Major Subdivision Resubmittal $1,000
For each original lot unchanged add $10/lot
For each lot redesigned/added add $125/lot
Mobile Home Parks 8s Campgrounds (6 or more spaces) $1,000 + $250/space
(5 or fewer spaces) $400 + $125/space
Amended Preliminary Plat
Amendment to Conditions Only
$400 base fee
Re -configured Proposed Lots
Base fee + $40/lot
Add Additional Lots or Sublots
Base fee + $125/lot
Subdivision Variance
$100 (per variance)
Commercial and Industrial Subdivision
$1,000 + $125/lot
SUBDIVISION NAME: Village Heights Professional Center
OWNER(S) OF RECORD:
Name PTA Development Phone 406-756-1128
Mailing Address 690 Meridian Road
City Kalispell State MT Zip 59901
TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS (Surveyor/Designer/Engineer, etc):
Name Address AE2S 690 Meridian Road, Ste 218 Kalispell, MT 59901 (Alan Wendt, PE & Steve Rude, PLS)
Name 8s Address
Name 8s Address
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Property Address 105 Village Loop
Assessor's Tract No(s) 0502791 Lot No(s) Lot 1 of Village Heights Prof. Center
1 /4 Sec SW Section 32 Township 29N Range 21 W
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION:
Number of Lots or Rental Spaces 2 Total Acreage in Subdivision 1.53
1
Total Acreage in Lots 1.53 Minimum Size of Lots or Spaces 21.927 SgF1
Total Acreage in Streets or Roads 0 Maximum Size of Lots or Spaces 40,401 SgF1
Total Acreage in Parks, Open Spaces and/or Common Areas 0
PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTS/SPACES:
Single Family
Duplex
Townhouse
Apartment
Commercial 2 Industrial
Condominium Multi -Family
Mobile Home Park _
Recreational Vehicle Park _
Planned Unit Development.
Other
APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT
ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED:
Roads: Gravel Paved
Curb Gutter
Sidewalks
Alleys -Other.
Water System: Individual
Multiple User
Neighborhood
Public Other
Sewer System: Individual
Multiple User
Neighborhood
Public Other
Other Utilities: Cable TV
Telephone
Electric
Gas Other _
Solid Waste: Home Pick Up
Central Storage
Contract Hauler
Owner Haul
Mail Delivery: Central
Individual School
District:
Fire Protection: Hydrants
Tanker Recharge
Fire District:
Drainage System:
PROPOSED EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL:
VARIANCES: ARE ANY VARIANCES REQUESTED? (yes/no) If yes,
please complete the information below:
SECTION OF REGULATIONS CREATING HARDSHIP:
EXPLAIN THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE CREATED WITH STRICT COMPLIANCE
WITH REGULATIONS
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES) TO STRICT COMPLIANCES WITH ABOVE
REGULATIONS:
2
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THE SPACES PROVIDED
BELOW:
1. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties?
2. Will the variance cause a substantial increase in public costs?
3. Will the variance affect, in any manner, the provisions of any adopted zoning
regulations, Master Plan or Growth Policy?
4. Are there special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the site
(topography, shape, etc.) that create the hardship?
5. What other conditions are unique to this property that create the need for a
variance?
3
APPLICATION CONTENTS:
The subdivider shall submit a complete application addressing items below to the
Kalispell Planning Department at least thirty five (35) days prior to the date of the
Planning Board meeting at which it will be heard.
1. Completed preliminary plat application.
2. 4 copies of the preliminary plat.
3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See Appendix A of
Subdivision Regulations for the city where the subdivision is proposed.)
4. One reduced copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed 11" x 17" in
size.
5. Electronic copy of the application materials, including the preliminary
plat, either copied onto a disk or emailed to plan ning(a-kalispell.com
(Please note the maximum file size to email is 20mg)
6. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing
the location and boundaries of the property.
7. Application fee based on the schedule on page 1 of this application and
made payable to the City of Kalispell.
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 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 Planning staff to be
present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and
development process.
(Applicant)
a]
\1?-=(, N
(Date)
•
<
!
E!«/
-
: „
§�
)
)
j
{
§))\)
2
:_
2)\
-_
~
G:a
o
lw
j\
/\}}
\
\
\�
\§
/
/
}
�\
}
{
r
$
.
\§§
-
)
]
:
§\
[ !§),
{\
\kj)\[
\
\ )(
/ k
/
\\
)\\(\
k (
-
!!&\§
LT
co
°(§®� W®
§�}/
0
.=e=! § q`!®
`
W.
-�\}j§ ;wz Sew(
C,
2§§2
\b�(2j (�)4 §§}4
>
o:!\
° : o!!! o�Q!
w
�-
e:,
_ 2!:!
° 4zzz§ }§2
wj
2!!e
=
[°2 B:
m
Ee
//(m §/
:///
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
(REVISED)
PROFESSIONAL THERAPY ASSOCITES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
Village Loop
Kalispell, Montana
Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910
Revised September 14, 2017
Prepared for:
AMI Development, Inc.
Kalispell, Montana
Prepared by:
,* LPI N E
GEOTECHNICAL
Kalispell, Montana
,ALPINE
GEOTECHNICAL
September 14, 2017
AMI Development
56 3rd Avenue EN
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attn: Kyle Reddig
kylea-ami-mt.com
Re: Report Geotechnical Investigation
Professional Therapy Associates and site development
Kalispell, Montana
Dear Mr. Reddig:
Alpine Geotechnical, LLC (Alpine) has completed the geotechnical investigation for the
planned Professional Therapy Associates facility located at the intersection of Village Loop
and Whitefish Stage Road in Kalispell, Montana. Our requested scope also included the
adjacent site development areas to the north and east that will be future parking/access
roadway areas. We were asked to provide geotechnical information and recommendations
needed to assist with the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, pavements,
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 June 5, 2017, and subsequent email authorization.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your
project, and look forward in 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 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
FOUNDATION PREPARATION.................................................................................................
6
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................................
7
BELOW -GRADE WALLS........................................................................................................
8
DRAINAGE...........................................................................................................................
9
EARTHWORK.......................................................................................................................
9
FLOORSLABS...................................................................................................................
11
PAVEMENTS......................................................................................................................
12
CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................
14
APPENDIX A
Exploration Location Plan
Boring Logs
Perimeter Underdrainage Detail
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX C
General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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:
Uncontrolled fill materials were encountered across the site that extended to depths
ranging from 2.5 to 5.5 feet below existing grade. In our opinion this material is not
suitable for foundation or slab support and therefore should be completely removed
from the building footprint.
Foundations should be established on a layer of Structural Fill atop properly prepared
native subgrade, prepared according to the Foundation Preparation section of this
report. A twelve (12) inch thickness of Structural Fill has been recommended for
perimeter strip foundations.
Maximum perimeter line loads of 3,000 pounds per lineal foot have been used to develop
the recommendations contained in this report. Alpine must be notified if design loading
parameters differ from the provided values, so we can review and revise our
recommendations as necessary.
A recommended allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) has
been developed for foundations, based upon support from Structural Fill.
From the 2012 International Building Code Section 1613.3.2, and ASCE 7-10 Table
20.3-1, the seismic site classification for this site is E.
Existing fill materials on the site may be used as fill/backfill outside building limits, if selected
and processed according to the specific recommendations contained in the Earthwork
section.
Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in
achieving the design foundation support for both building and pavement improvements.
It is therefore critical that Alpine be retained to provide observation/testing during the
earthwork portion of the work 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 FOLIndation of a SUCcessfUl Project
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROFESSIONAL THERAPY ASSOCIATES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
Kalispell, Montana
Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910
September 14, 2017
INTRODUCTION
Alpine Geotechnical has completed the subsurface investigation for the planned Professional
Therapy Associates facility and adjacent site development in Kalispell, Montana. In
accordance with our proposal, a total of nine (9) borings were drilled to investigate subsurface
conditions within the planned building location and roadway/parking areas. Three (3)
additional borings were requested within potential stormwater retention areas, so these were
also completed. The purposes of this report are to describe the subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings, present the test data, and provide geotechnical recommendations
based upon our analysis with regard to foundations, floor slabs, below -grade walls for the
structure, and pavements for the planned parking/access roadway areas.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The Professional Therapy Associates (PTA) facility will be located along Village Loop at the
intersection of Whitefish Stage Road in Kalispell, Montana. The current project also includes a
subdivision that will create a total of 4 building lots (PTA site included) along Village Loop. The
proposed PTA building is anticipated to be single -story above grade, with a total footprint of
5,158 square feet. The proposed building is anticipated to feature perimeter strip foundations, and
concrete slab -on -grade with wood framing. Loading is unknown at this time, but is assumed to be
less than 3,000 pounds per lineal foot for perimeter line loads. Foundation depths for this addition
are estimated to be 3.5 feet below existing grade. There will also be a new parking areas totaling
of 19 spaces located on the north and east sides of the new building. The adjacent site
development includes more parking areas and access drives to the east and north of the PTA
facility. The other three building lots associated with this subdivision were excluded from the
current scope of investigation.
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Field Exploration
Subsurface exploration took place on June 22, 2017, and included a total of twelve (12) borings,
designated DH-1 through DH-12 drilled within proposed building, parking/roadway, and stormwater
retention areas to depths ranging from 6.5 to 31.5 feet below existing grade. Borings for the
The FOLMdatiori of a SUCCeSSfill Project
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
building are represented by DH-1 through DH-3, parking/access roadway and stormwater retention
areas by DH-4 through DH-12. An exploration location plan and individual logs of each boring are
included in Appendix A.
The borings were advanced using a truck mounted, rotary drill rig (CME 45) using continuous
flight hollow -stem augers operated by In N Out Drilling of Black Eagle, Montana.
Representative samples were obtained by split -barrel sampling methods in general
accordance with applicable ASTM D1586, where 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, is the
standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N). 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 with auger cuttings
prior to the drill crew leaving the site.
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 our geoscientists field classifications and any modifications based on laboratory
observation and tests of the samples, and review from our geotechnical engineer. 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
tested for natural moisture content. Selected samples were tested for liquid limit, plastic limit,
and plasticity index (ASTM D4318), particle size (ASTM C136 & C117), one-dimensional
consolidation/swell (ASTM D2435), unconfined compressive strength (ASTM D2166), and
maximum dry density (ASTM D698) to aid in soil classification and provide input for our
analyses. A description of the laboratory test results 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 engineer's field classifications and laboratory test results, the estimated group symbol
for each strata 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.
The F041ndation of a SLXCeSSfiJI Project 2
w
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
SITE CONDITIONS
The site contains previously placed, variable fill materials over the entire property that is
presumed to be uncontrolled (i.e. placed without processing, oversight, or quality control
testing). There were several structures that previously existing on the property that were
recently demolished, which were barn -type outbuildings. The existing surface grade across
the site is generally flat and the site has existing front sidewalks and curbs along Village Loop
to the south. The west side along Whitefish State Road had a roadway drainage swale.
Proposed grade changes appear to be limited, with modest grade increases of 1 to 2 feet
anticipated based on the existing site and planned improvements. 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 west 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 specific near -
surface geology for the project site consists of glacial outwash silty clays, silty sands, with
zones of silty clay. The area sits atop a bluff above the Stillwater River known for past
sloughing and instability; however, the property is located a considerable distance away (300
feet+) from the slope crest, and should therefore not be adversely impacted.
Soil Conditions
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions across the project site can be
generalized as uncontrolled fill materials including topsoil in the upper portion of the profile
atop native soils. Native soils generally consisted of silty sand followed by fine-grained silty
clay with zones of silty sand and occasional zones of lean clay in the upper portion of the
subsurface profile. Below is a general summary of the subsurface conditions, with soil strata
description along with approximate depths below existing grade:
Soil Description
1. Organic Silt Topsoil/Uncontrolled Fill
2. Silty Sand
3. Silty Clay/Lean Clay
4. Silty Sand
Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum
2.5 to 5.5 feet
6.0 to 8.0 feet
10.0 to 15.0 feet
20.0 to 21.5 feet
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLXC8SSfiJI Project 3
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
5. Silty Clay/Lean Clay Termination Depths of 21.5 to 31.5 feet
The native subsurface silty sand overburden (shown as soil #2 above) below the uncontrolled
fill was field assessed as loose to very loose, based upon Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
values in the range of 2 to 7 blows per foot. Natural moisture contents in this strata varied
from 7 to 23 percent, indicating damp to very moist conditions. Particle size laboratory testing
completed on a split spoon sample of silty sand from Boring DH-1 at a depth of 9.5 feet
indicated 65 percent fine sand and 35 percent silt.
The underlying silty clay and/or lean clay strata (shown as soil #3 above) exhibited soft to
medium stiff consistency based upon field SPT values ranging from 3 to 7 blows per foot.
Natural moisture contents in this strata varied from 20 to 29 percent, indicating very moist to
wet conditions. Liquid and plastic limit testing performed on a sample from Boring DH-4 at 7.5
feet produced a liquid limit and plasticity index of 28 and 8 percent, respectively. These results
indicate lean clay, but are very near the border with silty clay, and it is anticipated and a
significant amount of silty clay is present in the other borings at similar depth. A thin -walled
tube sample was taken from Boring DH-1 from a depth of 6.5 to 8.5 feet below existing grade.
Portions of this sample were tested for one-dimensional consolidation/swell by ASTM D2435,
unconfined compressive strength by ASTM D2166, as well as unit weight (or density) and
natural moisture content. Consolidation testing recorded about 0.8 percent axial strain at field
moisture content and a normal stresses of 1,000 psf after which the sample was inundated.
The sample did not exhibit collapse or swell potential upon inundation at this normal stress.
The resulting total axial strains were about 1.4, 2.5, and 4.2 percent at normal stresses of
2,000, 4,000, and 8,000 psf, respectively. The normal stress was then reduced to 2,000 psf,
and the sample showed slight rebound, ending at about 3.5 percent total axial strain. The
consolidation test was conducted on a sample that weighed 93 pounds per cubic foot dry at an
initial moisture content of 30 percent. Unconfined compressive strength testing of a different
portion of the same thin -walled tube sample indicated 1,276 psf maximum compressive stress
at failure which occurred at about 2 percent axial strain. This test result would correspond to
an undrained shear strength of about 640 psf.
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. Please refer to Appendix B for complete laboratory testing
results.
The test results for the upper portion of native soils indicate moderate compressibility, and
other areas with lesser field SPT N-values are expected to be more compressible. This will be
further discussed in the Geotechnical Considerations and Foundation Preparation sections
of this report.
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLXC8SSfiJI Project 4
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
Groundwater Conditions
The borings were observed while drilling and immediately after completion for the presence
and level of groundwater. Groundwater was encountered in two of the three deeper borings
(DH-1 and DH-2) at a depth of 23.0 feet below existing grade at the time of the field
investigation.
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. The potential for
seasonal groundwater perching should be considered when developing the design and
construction plans for the project. Perched groundwater zones may develop atop the zone of
silty clay or lean clay.
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Geotechnical Considerations
We understand the proposed building is anticipated to be single -story above grade, with a total
footprint of 5,158 square feet. The proposed building is anticipated to feature perimeter strip
foundations, and concrete slab -on -grade. We anticipate the building will be primarily wood -
framed, with fiber cement siding. Loading is unknown at this time, but is assumed to be less than
3,000 pounds per lineal foot for perimeter line loads. Foundation depths are estimated to be about
4 feet below existing grade.
The uncontrolled fill materials that exist on the property are not considered reliable to support
either foundations or slabs because of increased risk of excessive settlement. Therefore,
recommendations have been developed to remove all uncontrolled fill materials from within the
building footprint. The silty sand that is predominant at foundation depth for the majority of the
building footprint was loose to very loose, and will be settlement -prone under direct bearing of
foundations. The silty sand will almost certainly be collapse -sensitive in the presence of water
given the anticipated low in -place density. We have therefore included a subexcavation and
replacement with Structural Fill under perimeter foundations to provide better load -settlement
relations. As a precautionary measure and to mitigate the potential for seepage zones, we
have included a recommendation for perimeter foundation underdrainage. If completed
according to the recommendations in this Report, the Structural Fill will adequately and reliably
support the foundation loads, and help maintain settlement at an acceptable magnitude. This
will be further discussed in detail in the following Foundation Preparation section.
Perimeter foundation underdrainage should be provided for all structures and the collection
pipe positively discharged well beyond the building envelope. The silty sand beneath the
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SUrC8SSfUI Project 5
w
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
foundation supporting Structural Fill will likely have collapse potential following inundation, and
perimeter underdrainage will minimize the impact of water intrusion on the supporting soils.
Thus, installation of a perimeter drain will reduce the risk for adverse differential performance
of foundations and the floor slab from water infiltration/saturation. An underdrainage detail is
included in Appendix A. Based on the field findings and presence of the existing stormwater
infiltration trenches, there is strong potential for water migration into the basement, and it
would be prudent to have a system in place to remove water in the event it migrates into
basement areas.
Pavement subgrade for parking and roadway areas is anticipated to be uncontrolled fill
materials consisting of sandy silty clay with intermixed organics. If the owner is willing to
accept some risk of differential pavement performance in exchange for reduced construction
costs, the existing fill may remain in place. This material will be a weak subgrade material,
which is reflected in the recommended pavement section, and a thorough evaluation during
subgrade preparation will be required to stabilize any excessively yielding areas. The
Pavements section of this report contains details for subgrade preparation and recommended
pavement section.
The preliminary site plans indicate that stormwater retention areas will be situated along
Whitefish Stage and Village Loop, which are the furthest possible locations away from the
slope crest. As mentioned earlier in this report, this bluff is known for past instability and
sloughing. Based on the proximity to the slope crest beyond 300 feet, it does not seem that
bank stability would be adversely impacted by the planned development. The slope has been
failure prone in other areas to the north and south, so slope failures are possible along this
corridor absent any development.
Foundation Preparation
In our opinion, the proposed building foundations can be supported by conventional strip and
column foundations bearing on a layer of Structural Fill atop properly prepared subgrade.
Areas of uncontrolled fill should be completely removed under the entire building footprint and
beneath foundations. During initial foundation excavation, the excavation should be extended
a minimum of 12 inches beyond the foundation level. Silty sand subgrade at this level should
be water conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 95% relative to standard Proctor
(ASTM D698) maximum dry density. Native fine-grained soils encountered at the base of the
12-inch subexcavation should be neatly excavated using smooth -lipped buckets to minimize
disturbance, and only surface compacted to recover disturbance caused by excavation. The
recommended 12 inch thickness of Structural Fill to re-establish final footing grade should be
placed in two lifts, each compacted to a minimum of 98% relative to standard Proctor
maximum dry density. The 6-inch layer of Structural Fill should then be placed and compacted
to a minimum of 98% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The Foundation
recommendations have been developed to provide a recommended allowable bearing capacity
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SUCC8SSfUI Project 6
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
based upon this specific preparation sequence, and preparation is critical to satisfactory
foundation performance.
Our engineer should be contacted to verify subgrade conditions during excavation. Unsuitable
areas observed at this time should be improved by an appropriate program of scarification,
compaction, and/or reinforcing with geogrid/geotextile; alternately, unsuitable areas can be
removed and replaced with engineered fill. 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 building are presented below.
Description
Allowable bearing pressure
Minimum footing dimensions
Minimum embedment below finished grade —
perimeter strip foundations
Approximate total settlement from foundation
loads
Estimated differential settlement from foundation
loads
Value
2,000 psf
Continuous footings: 18 inches
Spread footings: 30 inches
3.5 feet
< 3/4 inch
1 /2 to 2/3 of the total settlement
Foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface profile, the
structural loading conditions, the embedment depths of the footings, the thickness of
engineered fill (if required), and the quality of the earthwork operations and footing
construction. These recommendations have been based on maximum wall loads of 3,000
pounds per lineal foot. 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 Considerations
The north Kalispell area is considered an area of moderate ground shaking potential. Mapping
by the US Geological Survey for the project latitude and longitude indicates an estimated
horizontal peak ground acceleration of 0.30g with a 98 percent probability of non-exceedance
in a given 50-year period, which corresponds to a return period of 2475 years.
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLXC8SSfiJI Project 7
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910
ALLPI N E
-GEOTECHNICAL
Code Used Site Classification
2012 International Building Code (IBC)E2
1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.2, and
ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1
2. The 2012 International Building Code and ASCE 7-10 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 31.5 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.
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 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
42
(0.36)S
(42)H
At -Rest
Structural Fill - 0.41
55
(0.41)S
(55)H
(Ko)
Processed Site Fill — 0.53
61
(0.53)S
(61)H
Passive
Structural Fill — 3.85
500
---
---
(Kp)
Processed Site Fill —2.80
320
---
---
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
The FOLVIdatiOn of a Successful Project 8
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
• 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
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 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. Perimeter foundation underdrainage is
recommended for all buildings. A perimeter underdrainage details is included in Appendix A.
Earthwork
For the specific recommended preparation sequence for building foundations, please refer to
the Foundations section of this report. To prepare the site for construction, all surficial topsoil,
grasses, roots, construction debris, 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. All uncontrolled fill materials
should be completely removed from the PTA building footprint, and replaced with Structural
Fill. Excavated materials not suitable for use as backfill, should be disposed of off -site or
stockpiled for future use in landscaped areas. The most conservative option for the
uncontrolled fill material on the roadway/parking areas would be to remove all previously
placed fill materials and replace either in a controlled manner in compacted lifts and tested by
Alpine personnel or replaced with Structural Fill. However, if the owner is willing to accept
some risk of differential pavement performance in exchange for reduced construction costs,
the fill material could remain in place and be evaluated. Evaluation would include
recompaction (water conditioning if necessary) and observation of stability under rubber -tired
construction equipment traffic. Depending on the season of construction and other factors
such as defined haul routes, however, 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 FOLVIdatiOn of a SLJCC8SSfiJI Project 9
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910
ALLPI N E
-GEOTECHNICAL
The non -organic, on -site fill soils can be made suitable for use as foundation backfill and
general fill outside of building limits, if processed and placed according to this report.
Processing involves removal of all oversized material larger than 4 inches in maximum size,
and rejecting otherwise unsuitable materials such as organic matter and construction debris. It
is anticipated that a fair amount of processing will be required due to the significant organic
content; therefore, care should be exercised to ensure that processed fill materials do not
contain any deleterious matter.
Structural Fill for building foundation support, soil replacement, and backfill should be
developed from reliable source(s) approved by our geotechnical engineer and meet the
following gradation and composition requirements:
Screen or Sieve Size
Percent Passing by Weight
3-inch
100
1 1/2-inch
85-100
No. 4
30-60
No. 200
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.
F-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. If small vibratory plates
are used, they should only be used in isolated areas with lift thickness limited to 3 inch in loose
thickness. All fill material should be compacted as specified in the table below.
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SUCCeSSfUI Project 10
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910
ALLPI N E
-GEOTECHNICAL
Fill
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
Material
using Standard Effort (ASTM D-698)
Type
Minimum Percent
Moisture content
Compaction
range, from optimum
Below Foundations
98%
Structural Fill
Workable, generally within
3% of optimum
Structure Backfill/Soil
Replacement
95%
General Fill*
Processed
Structure Backfill, and below
roadways/slabs
95%
-3% to +3%
existing site fill
specific evaluation for each
materials
Below unimproved
landscaped areas
90%
material
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 provide guidance the competent
authority during construction, if requested.
Floor Slabs
Lightly -loaded floor slabs founded on a compacted Structural Fill are expected to have low risk
of differential performance assuming earthwork is completed in accordance with this report.
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.
The FauriciatiOn of a Successful Project 11
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
Joints should be constructed at regular intervals as recommended by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) to help control the location of cracking. It should be understood that differential
settlement between the floor slabs and foundation could occur.
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.
Pavements
It is anticipated that final subgrade elevations within the parking/access roadway areas will be
near to slightly above existing grades. If the owner is willing to accept some risk of differential
site hardscapes performance in exchange for reduced construction costs, the existing
uncontrolled fill can remain in place. Prior to placing any additional fill for pavement section
construction, the existing subgrade materials should thoroughly scarified and recompacted and
subsequently 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. If the uncontrolled fill material is to remain in place, we recommend a
woven, 8 ounce geotextile fabric be placed atop the properly prepared and evaluated fill
material that will serve as pavement subgrade. The requirements of a suitable fill and its
placement are discussed in Earthwork section of this report.
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. If this situation develops, 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 D 698.
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.
We also consulted the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) methodology, which is
specific to low -volume pavements. 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. If heavier vehicle types or higher traffic volumes are
expected, Alpine should review these assumptions and recommendations.
The design of pavement thickness was based on this traffic data and the following:
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLXC8SSfiJI Project 12
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
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 150 passenger vehicle trips per day and 5 garbage
and/or delivery vehicle trips per day. A qualitative subgrade modulus of "poor' was
used as the basis for subgrade pavement design based on the uncontrolled fill
materials.
A service life of 20 years.
As a minimum, we suggest the following typical pavement section be considered:
Typical Pavement Section Thickness
Traffic Area I Asphalt Concrete Crushed Base Subbase Course
Surface Course
Course
Total Thickness
Parking Areas 1 3 inches 1 4 inches 1 8 inches 1 15 inches
Roadway Areas 1 4 inches 6 inches 1 10 inches I 20 inches
For the areas identified for garbage collection, higher performance will be achieved through
installation of a minimum 5-inch thick Portland Cement Concrete Pavement as the surface
course to support the tipping axle of the garbage truck during stop/start and 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 subbase course should meet Montana Public Works Specification Section 02234 (6th
Edition) for Subbase Course, 4-inch minus and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum ASTM
D 698 dry density.
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SUCCeSSfUl Project 13
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-GEOTECHNICAL
Aggregate base course should meet Montana Public Works Specification Section 02235 (6th
Edition) for Crushed Base Course, 1 '/2 inch or 3/4 inch minus and compacted to at least 95% of the
maximum ASTM D 698 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
• Install 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
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 during or after construction. If variations appear, we
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
The FOLVIdatiOn of a SLXCeSSfiJI Project 14
Geotechnical Investigation Report — revised 7-26-17 LLPI E
Professional Therapy Associates/Site Development ■ Kalispell, Montana
July 3, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-910-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 SLJCC8SSfUI Project 15
LPINE
GEOTECHNICAL
APPENDIX A
2
Ln
LL
W
3
V I LLABE LAP
Project No. 17-910
LPINE
=GEOI ECHNICAL
1075 Trumble Creek Rd. Unit A Kalispell, MT
PH. (406) 257-6479 FAX. (406) 257-6480
Exploration Location Plan
Exhibit
Scale NTS
PROFESSIONAL THERAPY ASSOCIATES
KALISPELL MONTANA
A-1
Date 7/3/2017
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-1
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas Project No.: 17-910
Client: AMI Date: 6/22/17
Location: PTA building area, approx. SW bldg. cor (see Appendix A) Elevation:
Driller: In N Out Logged By: Cliff Clark
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial 23.0' At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, I STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DID DEPTH N C U R V E
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
.............................
FILL Fill, sandy sitly clay with intermixed topsoil,
brown to dark brown, damp, stiff
5
-10
- 15
- z0
25
30
- 35
9
SM Silty SAND, brown, very moist, loose 18
CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff
24
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, damp, loose, with rust 7
....... .colored mottling
CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff, 26
with rust colored mottling
SM Silty SAND, brown, damp, medium dense 8
CL-ML Silty CLAY with interbedded zones of silty 28
sand, light brown, wet, soft to medium stiff
End of Boring DH-1 at 31.5'
26
29
14
7
7
7
14
3
3
5
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DI-2
Project- Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client- AMI
Location- PTA building area, approx. NW bldg. cor (see Appendix A)
Driller- In N Out
Drill Rig- CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial 23.0' At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DID
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
� 0 ..................................................
-5
10
15
- 20
25
- 30
- 35
FILL Fill, sandy silty clay with intermixed topsoil, 9
dark brown to brown, damp, soft
..5.................................................. Silty SAND15, brown, very moist, loose, with 4
rust colored mottling at 6.5'
.............................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff, 26
with rust colored mottling
..5.................................................. Silty SAND, brown, wet to slightly moist, 18
medium dense
6
CL-ML Silty CLAY with interbedded silty sand, 28
brown, wet, soft to medium stiff, with rust
colored mottling
End of Boring DH-2 at 26.5'
26
Project No.: 17-910
Date- 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By- Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DEPTH I N C U R V E
4
7
5
12
15
2
4
ALPI N E
—GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DI-3
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: PTA building area, approx. mid east side (see Appendix A)
Driller: In N Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion T :
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DID
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
[0 ......................................................
mm FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, moist to very moist, medium stiff
5
10
- 15
20
- 25
30
- 35
21
.............................................................
ML SILT with sand, brown, wet, soft, interbedded 20
silty clay, with rust colored mottling at 6.5'
......................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY with interbedded silty sand, light 27
brown, wet, soft, with rust colored mottling
SM Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense
10
CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff27
.......................................... SM Silty SAND, brown, damp to wet, medium 6
dense to loose
Interbedded silty clay at 21.0' 127
End of Boring DH-3 at 21.5'
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DEPTH I N C U R V E
5
4
3
10
14
8
ALPI N E
—GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-4
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Site/parking area, south central (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
o.............................................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, damp, soft
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, moist to wet, loose to very 8
5 loose
23
CL Lean CLAY with interbedded silty clay and 27
silty sand, light brown, wet, medium stiff
10
End of Boring DH-4 at 9.0'
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
3
2
5
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-5
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Site/parking area, mid south central (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
0 .............................................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, damp, soft
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, moist to wet, very loose to 7
5 loose
...................................................... ML SILT, brown, wet, soft, with rust colored 29
mottling
End of Boring DH-5 at 6.5'
10
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
3
4
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-6
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Site/parking area, mid north central (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, damp, soft
SM Silty SAND, brown, moist to very moist, loose 8
rust colored mottling at 5.0'
13
.............................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY with interbedded silty sand, light 26
gM brown, wet, medium stiff 22
.....................................................
Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose, silty clay at
9.0'
End of Boring DH-6 at 9.0'
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
3
5
6
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-7
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Site/parking area, east side (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
-0
-5
- 10
15
20
25
30
- 35
..........................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, moist, soft
......................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, moist to wet, very loose to 8
loose
.............................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY with interbedded silty sand, light 24
brown, wet, soft to medium stiff, with rust
colored mottling
27
End of Boring DH-7 at 11.5'
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
2
3
4
7
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-8
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Stormwater retention, north side (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
0 .............................................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, moist, soft
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, very moist to wet, loose to 18
5 medium dense
.................................................. ML SILT, light brown, wet, stiff, with rust colored 22
mottling at 5.5'
.....................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff 25
10
End of Boring DH-8 at 9.0'
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
5
Ire
5
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-9
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Site/parking area, mid northwest (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
0 .............................................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, damp, soft
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, damp, loose to medium 3
5 dense
ML..
SILT, light brown, wet, stiff to medium stiff, 21
with rust colored mottling
...................................................... CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, soft 27
-10 End of Boring DH-9 at 9.0'
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
4
12
4
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-10
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Site/parking area, northwest corner (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
0 .............................................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, damp, soft
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, damp, very loose to 3
5 medium dense
Rust colored mottling at 5.5' 24
End of Boring DH-10 at 6.5'
10
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
2
Ire
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-11
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Stormwater retention, west of PTA bldg. (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, moist to very moist, soft to stiff
17
.............................................................
ML SILT, light brown, wet, stiff to medium stiff, 25
.... . with rust colored mottling
CL-ML Silty CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff,
27
with rust colored mottling
End of Boring DH-I I at 9.0'
- 15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
4
Is
7
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-12
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
Client: AMI
Location: Stormwater retention, south of PTA bldg. (see Appendix A)
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 75
Depth to Water> Initial N/A At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description TNM
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
..........................................
FILL Fill, intermixed topsoil and sandy silt, dark
brown, moist to very moist, stiff
20
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, damp, loose 5
.............................................................
ML SILT, light brown, wet, soft, with rust colored 26
mottling
.............................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY with interbedded silty sand, light 27
brown, wet, soft
End of Boring DH-12 at 9.0'
15
20
25
30
- 35
Project No.: 17-910
Date: 6/22/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
DID DEPTH I N I CURVE
13
4
3
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
Foundation wall
,°
Cb
t�°
o Cc
v °
Co
C9<
°
v °
Cc
0
0 ° Ce
Ce
3/8" — 3/4" open graded
drainage aggregate
Finished grade at 10% across
backfill zone
Compacted Backfill
10 mil polyethylene sheeting
(with joints positively sealed)
fixed to foundation stemwall
extending below perimeter
underdrainage
Mirafi 140N geotextile or
approved alternate
11
PA
Minimum 4-inch diameter slotted
ADS underdrain (or approved
alternate) sloped at minimum 0.02
ft/ft to positive discharge
Exhibit
ALPINE
GEOTECHNICAL
/_1»=1 I,IQ/:II=3
SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
e
1,000
PRESSURE, psf
O
10,000
Specimen Identification
Classification
Yd, pcf
WC, %
•
DH-1 6.5 ft
LEAN CLAY
93
30
NOTES:
PROJECT: PTA
e SITE:
D Kalispell, MT
i
e
D
i
J
Irerracon
1392 13th Ave SW
Great Falls, MT
PROJECT NUMBER: C4151106
CLIENT: Alpine Geotechnical LLC
Kalispell, MT
EXHIBIT: B-1
Unconfined Compression (Qu) of Cohesive Soil
ASTM D-2166
Project:
PTA
Laboratory No.:
Job No.:
0
Soil Class.:
CL
Diameter:
2.875
Boring No.:
DH-1
Depth:
6.5-8.5'
Length:
6.0000
Type of Sample:
STS
Date Broke:
30-Jun-17
Comp. Rate:
0.80
Factor:
2.096488 4.601
Volume (cu. ft.):
0.022540995
Wet Wt. (g):
1409.9
L/D Ratio:
2.09
Wet Unit Wt.:
120.0
Dry Wt. (g):
1136.9
L/D Correction:
1
Dry Unit Wt.:
93.3
Pan Wt. (g):
182.6
Tested By:
BE
Area:
0.04508199
Moisture %
28.6
Checked By:
BE
qu value:
1275.83
Time
Strain%
Dial Reading
Proving Ring
Area (ft^2)
Comp Strength
Corrected Strength
0.0
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.0451
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.40
0.024
5.00
0.0453
333.25
333.2
1.0
0.80
0.048
12.00
0.0454
654.83
654.8
1.5
1.20
0.072
18.50
0.0456
950.84
950.8
2.0
1.60
0.096
23.20
0.0458
1162.06
1162.1
2.5
2.00
0.120
25.80
0.0460
1275.83
1275.8
3.0
2.40
0.144
25.80
0.0462
1270.62
1270.6
3.5
2.80
0.168
24.00
0.0464
1184.05
1184.0
4.0
3.20
0.192
22.80
0.0466
1125.16
1125.2
4.5
3.60
0.216
20.80
0.0468
1030.85
1030.8
Unconfined Compression (Qu)
ASTM D-2166
1400.0
1200.0
I H
1000.0
L
VJ
>_ 800.0
L
Q
E
U 600.0
400.0
200.0 Coe ed Strng h
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Strain (%)
100
90
80
70
LU 60
Z
LL
Z 50
LU
U
0f
LU 0- 40
30
20
10
Particle Size Analysis
o00
-
c0 M N � � n � M ik tk tk tk tk
--L- LL L -L-L-L
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
C,RAIN S17F - mm
% +3„
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt Clay
O
0
0
0
0
1
31
68
❑
0
0
0
0
0
65
35
❑
0
0
0
0
0
22
78
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
DEPTHNO. (ft.)
Material Description
USCS
O
1366
0'-4'
Sandy Silty Clay (Bulk Sample)
CL-ML
❑
DH-1
9.5
Silty SAND, brown, damp, loose, with rust colored mottling
SM
ZAI
DH-3
5.5
SILT with sand
ML
Client: AMI
AProject: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
ALPINE= G EOTECHNICAL Project No.: 17-910 Figure
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX
60
50
40
X
LU
0
z_
30
U
H
Q
J
CL
20
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80
90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
0�0
G�
•
CL-ML
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
113
14.9%
111.2
c
111
109
U
Q
T
C
N
T
107
105
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
2.65
103
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
0'-4'
CL-ML
A-4(0)
5.4
2.65
20
4
0
68
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 111.2 pcf
Optimum moisture = 14.9 %
Sandy Silty Clay (Bulk Sample)
Project No. 17-910 Client: AMI
Project: Professional Therapy Associates and parking/access roadway areas
0Location: DH-1,DH-2,DH-3 Sample Number: 1366
Remarks:
Figure
41
ALPINE
.GI 'ECHNICAL
ALPINE
GEOTECHNICAL
APPENDIX C
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS:
Split Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted
HS:
Hollow Stem Auger
ST:
Thin -Walled Tube — 2" O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted
PA:
Power Auger (Solid Stem)
RS:
Ring Sampler- 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted
HA:
Hand Auger
DB:
Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B
RB:
Rock Bit
BS:
Bulk Sample or Auger Sample
WB
Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split -spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration
with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value".
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing Removal
WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal
DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times
and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low
permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have
more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained
Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if
they are slightly plastic or non -plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to
the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse -grained soils are defined on the basis of their in -place relative
density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Unconfined
Standard Penetration
Compressive
or N-value (SS)
Consistency
Strength, Qu, psf
Blows/Ft.
< 500
0-1
Very Soft
500 — 1,000
2-4
Soft
1,000 — 2,000
4-8
Medium Stiff
2,000 — 4,000
8 - 15
Stiff
4,000 — 8,000
15 - 30
Very Stiff
8,000+
> 30
Hard
:7NIweviI1UQU:t0710]:49101 11xil�Ioxcl:7e\UNII
Descriptive Term(s)
Percent of
of other constituents
Dry Weight
Trace
< 15
With
15 — 29
Modifier
>_ 30
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Descriptive Term(s)
Percent of
of other constituents
Dry Weight
Trace
< 5
With
5-12
Modifier
> 12
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS
Standard Penetration
or N-value (SS) Relative Density
Blows/Ft.
0-3
Very Loose
4-9
Loose
10-29
Medium Dense
30 — 50
Dense
> 50
Very Dense
GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Major Component
Particle Size
of Sample
Boulders
Over 12 in. (300mm)
Cobbles
12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)
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)
PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
Term
Plasticity
Index
Non -plastic
0
Low
1-10
Medium
11-30
High
> 30
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests Group Group Name
Symbol
Coarse Grained Soils:
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Fine -Grained Soils:
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
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
fraction retained on
Gravels with Fines:
Fines classify as ML or MH
GM
F,G,
Silty gravel
4 sieve
No.Sands:
More than 12% fines °
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
Clayey gravel F G "
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
Inorganic: PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line' CL Lean clay
Silts and Clays: PI < 4 or plots below "A" line' ML Silt K,L,M
Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,"
Organic: < 075 OL
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt.K,L,M,o
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Inorganic:
PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay K,L,M
PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M
Organic:
Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P Liquid limit - not dried i Organic silt K,L,M,°
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor I PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve
B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles
or boulders, or both" to group name.
° Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well -graded
gravel with silt, GW-GC well -graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well -graded
sand with silt, SW -SC well -graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
z
E Cu = D60/ D10 Cc = (D30 )
D10 x D60
F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.
° If fines classifv as CL-ML. use dual svmbol GC -GM. or SC-SM.
60
50
IL
X 40
W
Q
Z_
>- 30
U
20
J
0_
10
7
4
0
0
" If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.
If soil contains >_ 15% gravel, add "with gravel' to group name.
If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with
gravel," whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy"
to group name.
If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
"gravelly" to group name.
" PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A" line.
° PI < 4 or plots below "A" line.
P PI plots on or above "A" line.
° PI plots below "A" line.
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
,ALPINE
GEOTECHNICAL
August 3, 2017
AMI Development
56 3rd Avenue EN
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attn: Kyle Reddig
kylea-ami-mt.com
Re: Report of Infiltration testing
Professional Therapy Associates and site development
Kalispell, Montana
Dear Mr. Reddig:
Alpine Geotechnical, LLC (Alpine) has completed infiltration testing at two locations for
proposed stormwater retention for the planned Professional Therapy Associates facility
located at the intersection of Village Loop and Whitefish Stage Road in Kalispell, Montana.
Testing was conducted by the EPA 1980 Falling Head Infiltration Rate testing methodology
at the approximate two locations shown on the attached site plan. The tests were
performed by the quick method and at a depth of 4 feet below existing grade. Test pits
were excavated to a depth of about 3 feet and hand excavated the final 1 foot and
prepared according to the test procedure. Our test results indicated infiltration rates of 1.7
minutes per inch and 2.4 minutes per inch for locations 1 and 2, respectively.
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
ALPINE
GEOTECHNICAL
November 7, 2017
AMI Development
56 3rd Avenue EN
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attn: Kyle Reddig
kylea-ami-mt.com
Re: Village Loop Slope Stability Evaluation
Kalispell, Montana
Dear Mr. Reddig:
Alpine Geotechnical, LLC (Alpine) has completed a slope stability evaluation for a portion of the existing
slope in the Village Heights Subdivision in Kalispell, Montana. We have previously performed a
geotechnical investigation for the planned Great Northern Dental facility located on Lots 3A and 3B (83
and 85 Village Loop) in Kalispell, Montana. The current slope stability evaluation was performed for
these two lots, as well as the near slope portion of the adjacent lots to the north, Lots 4A and 4B (95
Village Loop). We were asked to provide this additional geotechnical consultation to assess the slope
stability in the current undeveloped form, and the potential impact of the proposed development on
slope stability. The stability analysis was accomplished by drilling four borings along the slope crest to
investigate the subsurface conditions. In -place samples were taken, and a detailed lithology log was
created at each drill location. Laboratory analysis of recovered samples from the field investigation was
completed, and included natural moisture content, plasticity testing, particle size analysis, in -situ unit
weight, and direct shear testing. Stability analyses were performed, based upon the field findings,
laboratory results, and LIDAR survey data of the property provided by A2Z Engineering. The purposes
of this report are to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, present the test
data, and provide a discussion of the slope stability analysis for both the preconstruction and post
construction conditions.
Introduction/Site Conditions
The area sits atop a bluff above the Stillwater River known for past sloughing and instability. The
current plan is to position the Great Northern Dental building in the approximate center of Lots 3A and
3B, and about 30 feet away from the slope crest at the closest point. No plans have been developed at
this time for Lots 4A and 4B. On Lots 3A/3B, there is a scarp of significant length that has formed
along the top of the slope along the eastern property boundary. This was discussed in our
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
Geotechnical Report for this project. The scarp has increased in width and the downslope portion has
moved downward over the past several months. The scarp is parallel and slightly downslope of the
crest, and could potentially be associated with loose, near -surface fill materials that were pushed
beyond the edge of the slope during site grading. Several feet of fill materials are known to be present
on the property, and the irregular shape of the slope face in the upper portion indicates placement of
loose fill beyond the slope crest. The magnitude of the existing slope failure is difficult to assess, but
given the location of the scarp it appears to be a relatively shallow failure.
The existing slope is on the order of 46 to 50 feet in height, and is currently at an inclination that is
generally in the range of 2.2H:1 V to 2.4H:1 V. However, there are portions of the slope, especially on
the southern side of the Great Northern Dental properties, where the upper concave slope portion
above a bench in the lower portion of the slope has an inclination as steep as about 1.5H:1 V. The
slope does not currently show obvious signs of deep-seated slope failures that may have occurred in
the past, which indicates that it is at least moderately stable in its current condition. However, long term
monitoring of the slope profile and/or installation followed by monitoring of slope inclinometers would be
required to determine whether or not long term soil creep is occurring. As previously mentioned,
portions of the slope face have a somewhat irregular profile; however, this could be associated with
past fill placement where material was pushed beyond the existing slope crest in a loose condition.
There is an old access roadway that traverses the slope beginning high on the south side of Lots 2A/2B
and proceeding downward to the north to the lower, flatter area. The Village Greens golf course
maintenance shop is located below the slope, beyond a small gravel access drive/parking area.
There are existing surface water infiltration trenches located on both the north and south property lines.
There is another infiltration trench located beneath the sidewalk that parallels Village Loop in front of
lots 3A, 3B (subject properties) and lots 4A/4B that presumably provides drainage for the curb inlets
along the east side of Village Loop. These were reportedly installed in 2006, and include trenches that
extend into silty sand layers varying in depth from about 6 to 9 feet deep (based on Carver Engineering
record drawings provided by AMI). There are existing natural gas and sanitary sewer infrastructure
currently in place between the eastern edge of the infiltration trenches and the slope crest. The
Exploration Location Plan included in Appendix A illustrates the boring locations relative to existing site
features.
The City of Kalispell does not currently provide a public stormwater system in the area along Whitefish
Stage Road, so the current development relies on stormwater infiltration ponds for parking lot and roof
runoff from buildings. It should be known that stormwater from existing up gradient stormwater sources
such as Buffalo Stage and others have the potential to impact bank stability. This creates uncertainty
in regards to stormwater movement (laterally and vertically), and its potential impact to slope stability.
The complex geology of the project area with alternating zones of coarse (silty sand) and fine-grained
(silt and lean clay) soils makes it difficult to confidently predict groundwater movement and elevations.
Therefore, numerous assumptions have been made based on the drill logs during stability modeling to
predict the water seepage zones and saturated depths.
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
Field Exploration
Subsurface exploration took place on September 20-21, 2017, and included four (4) borings, designated DH-
1 through DH-4, that were drilled to depths ranging from 60.0 to 62.0 feet below existing grade at the top
of slope. An exploration location plan and individual logs of each boring are included in Appendix A. The
borings were advanced using a truck mounted, rotary drill rig (CME 45) using continuous flight hollow -
stem augers operated by In N Out Drilling of Black Eagle, Montana. Representative samples were
obtained by split -barrel sampling methods in general accordance with applicable ASTM D1586, where
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, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N). 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 with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site.
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 our geoscientists' field
classifications and any modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples, and review
by our geotechnical engineer. 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, and direct shear strength (ASTM D3080) to aid in soil classification
and provide input for our analyses. A description of the laboratory test results 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 geoscientist's field classifications and laboratory test results, the estimated group
symbol for each strata 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.
3
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
Soil Conditions
The subject properties contain previously placed, variable fill materials over a significant portion of the
property that is presumed to be uncontrolled (i.e. placed without processing, oversight, or quality control
testing). The existing surface grade of lots 3A and 3B slopes gently downward toward Village Loop and
the existing front sidewalks and curbs. The existing grade at lots 4A and 4B tends to be flatter and the
eastern portion slopes downward toward the east and slope crest. The area of Lots 4A/4B nearer the
slope is several feel lower in elevation than Lots 3A/3B, and does not appear to have the same depth
of fill.
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions across the project site can be generalized as
organic silt topsoil and uncontrolled fill materials in the upper portion of the profile atop native soils.
Native soils consisted of silty sand followed by fine-grained silt and silty clay with zones of silty sand
and occasional zones of lean clay in the upper portion of the subsurface profile. As depths increased,
there were alternating zones of silt, silty clay, silty sand, and lean clay.
The native soils in the upper 40 feet +/- of the subsurface profile were field assessed as loose (coarse -
grained soils) and soft to medium stiff (fine-grained soils), based upon Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
values typically in the range of 3 to 7 blows per foot. SPT testing revealed higher resistance, but also
higher variability below about 40 feet +/-, with blow counts ranging widely from 2 to 18 blows per foot.
Natural moisture contents were highly variable, and ranged from 4 to 43 percent, indicating damp to wet
conditions. The silt is considered saturated at moisture contents above about 25 percent, and silty
sand above about 15 percent.
Liquid and plastic limit testing performed on samples from Borings DH-1, DH-2, and DH-3 at depths of
51.0, 60.0, and 37.0 feet, respectively, indicated liquid limit and plasticity index values in the range of
28 to 35 and 11 to 14 percent (all lean clay). Particle size testing conducted in predominately fine-
grained areas (silt and lean clay) indicated about 3 to 4 percent sand. Direct shear testing was
conducted according to ASTM D3080 on thin -walled tube samples taken within each strata, including
silty clay, poorly graded sand, and silt with sand. The direct shear testing on each soil type was
conducted at three different normal (or vertical) stresses in order to develop a failure envelope,
establish the angle of internal friction, and cohesion for each soil type. The direct shear testing on all
samples was performed at normal stresses of 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
The shear stresses at failure for the silty clay were 459, 870, and 1766 psf. The sample was allowed to
rebound, and was then sheared again to obtain residual shear strength values, which were lower by
about 13 to 20 percent. The angle of internal friction based upon the residual shear testing was 35
degrees, and the cohesion value was about 50 psf. The shear stresses at failure for the poorly graded
sand were 814, 1515, and 2917 psf. Based on this testing, the angle of internal friction for the poorly
graded sand was 35 degrees. The shear stresses at failure for the silt with sand were 711, 1473, and
2931 psf. The angle of internal friction was 36 degrees, and the cohesion intercept was 20 psf.
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.
0
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
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. Please refer
to Appendix B for complete laboratory testing results.
Geology
The project site is located in west 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 specific near -surface geology for the project site consists of glacial outwash silty clays, silty sands,
with infrequent zones of interbedded lean clay. The differing soils are indicative of the seasonal
drainage activity as the glaciers advanced and retreated.
Geomorphology
The lithology of a region can dictate both hillslope processes and form. Soil -mantled hillslopes
composed of unconsolidated sediment and bedrock slopes each offer different resistance to erosion
and gravity -induced failure. Because of this, the lithology of a slope strongly influences the processes
that determine its evolution and morphology. There are two types of transport mechanisms on a
hillslope, diffusion and advection. Rainsplash, sheetwash, and soil creep are diffusive processes that
reduce relief and fill in depressions. Mass movements tend to act as advective processes and increase
relief. In many cases, hillslopes have both diffusive and advective transport mechanisms as a feedback
to maintain equilibrium and develop stability (Anderson, R. S., & Anderson, S. P. (2010).
Geomorphology: The mechanics and chemistry of landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press: p. 270-378).
Profiles observed at DH-4 indicate processes dominated by advection. As a result, the DH-4 hillslope
has developed a concave up profile. However, visual observation of diffusive processes such as soil
creep suggest this hillslope may be in an unsteady state. Diffusive processes currently acting on the
hillslope indicate this system is likely trying to restore equilibrium, or a linear profile, by filling in
depressions along the slope via soil creep. Evidence of active soil creep can include indicators of net
downslope movement such as tilted fence posts, pistol -butted trees, cracked building foundations, and
accumulation of soil on the upslope side of fixed obstructions. Recent landslides in close proximity to
the north of the hillslopes at Village Loop provide additional evidence that advection is the dominating
transport mechanism within the region. The aforementioned evidence of diffusion is likely a feedback
within the system in an attempt to restore steady-state morphology.
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 borings at depths of about 50 to 53 feet
5
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
below existing grade at the time of the field investigation. However, numerous seepage zones were
encountered above this level, as evidenced by the high moisture contents and wet conditions within
certain zones of the subsurface profile based upon the samples recovered.
It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table and also the seepage zones 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 and/or seepage levels in the
future may vary relative to the conditions indicated on the logs. Perched groundwater zones will likely
develop atop the zone of silty clay or lean clay. The potential for groundwater perching plays a
significant role in overall slope stability, as will be discussed further in the following Stability Analyses
section.
Stability Analyses
Stability analyses were conducted at all four drill locations along the slope (DH-1 through DH-4); the
models were constructed in the STEDwin application that is the graphical interface that works in
conjunction with GSTABL7 stability application. The slope sections were input based upon LIDAR
survey data provided by A2Z Engineering. Following initial stability analyses, a single critical slope
section was identified and specifically analyzed for each of the properties (Lots 3A/3B and Lots 4A/4B)
for the critical condition based upon slope inclination and/or building proximity. The critical slope
models for each property were at the following locations:
• Boring DH-1, northernmost boring on Lots 4A/4B.
• Boring DH-4, southernmost boring on Lots 3A/3B, where slope section is steepest and planned
building is in closest proximity to the slope crest (-30 feet).
The slope at Boring DH-1 (north side Lots 4A/4B) has a typical slope of about 2.2H:1 V, which has a
mildly irregular surface along the slope face. The maximum overall slope height in this area is on the
order of 45 feet. The slope at Boring DH-4 (south side Lots 3A/3B) has a compound section with an
upper tier having a typical slope of about 1.51-1:1V separated in the lower quarter by a former trail/road
above a lower slope with an inclination shallower than 4H:1V. The maximum overall slope height in this
area is on the order of 50 feet.
The analysis was conducted using the program GSTABL7 with STEDwin to compute 2-dimensional,
limiting equilibrium solutions by the Modified Bishop Method for circular arc failure surfaces at the slope
sections noted above. In the limiting equilibrium approach, factors of safety are computed for various
potential failure surfaces by comparing resisting moments to driving moments. That is, if resisting and
driving moments for the failure mass are equal, the factor of safety is FS = 1.0 and failure impends. If
resistance, or shear strength along a failure surface, exceeds the driving or destabilizing influences,
then the factor of safety increases. Typically, a minimum factor of safety FS = 1.3 is desired for in-
service, static conditions. The inclusion of seismic induced forces would significantly decrease the
factor of safety for all the conditions modeled. If adequate factors of safety are desired to include a
seismic event, additional stabilization measures would be required, and could include sheet piling,
n.
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
micropiles, or soil nails. These soil improvement techniques could also be considered if a higher factor
of safety is desired. Design of such soil improvements is beyond our current work scope.
Soil shear strength parameters and general soil stratigraphy for the current analysis were generated by
Alpine based upon the field investigation and laboratory testing. The strength parameters were
laboratory measured for the majority of the soil types encountered in the subsurface profile. Measured
values were used in the analysis; however, some parameters that did not have specific test data were
therefore estimated using typical parameters based upon our experience with similar soils. The soil
strata in our analysis were oriented horizontally for simplicity (as opposed to slightly inclined
stratigraphy towards the slope that we believe exists based on nearby drilling in the project vicinity). As
the primary objective for this analysis, we have modeled one slope for each property based upon the
current condition, and one slope for Lots 3A/3B for the as -constructed condition. Within the different
slope models, we have drawn hypothetical seepage levels to correspond with the estimated depth of
saturation for each condition. As the attached slope sections indicate, this has significant influence with
regard to generated factors of safety against slope failure. More details were available for the planned
development for Lots 3A/3B, so we have performed analysis for different cases on this property, and
have applied the same concepts to Lots 4A/4B that do not currently have preliminary designs available.
We anticipate that Lots 4A/4B can likely be developed using a similar approach to storm water
management, as will be discussed in the Conclusions section. We anticipate that Lots 4A/4B will
accommodate storm water systems and buildings that are positioned further from the slope. The
stability analysis for Lots 4A/4B for the current slope condition indicated a factor of safety that was just
above FS = 1.3.
In our analyses, factors of safety on the order of FS = 1.2 were found for the current slope condition
below Lots 3A/3B with failure surfaces that extend approximately 20 feet back from the slope crest.
The seepage zone was established at about 15 feet below grade to correspond to the saturated zone
encountered during the drilling. Another model was analyzed for the post development condition with a
higher hypothetical seepage level set at 8 feet below grade. This was performed to account for the
impact of concentrated stormwater loading in the upper levels of the profile from conventional shallow
storm drainage ponds or the previously installed infiltration trenches on the north and south sides of the
property. The factor of safety for the critical failure surface (shown in red on the attached plots) was
reduced to just over FS = 1.0, indicating an unacceptable condition where failure would likely develop
beyond the building limits. Moreover, additional failure surfaces with factors of safety less than FS =
1.3 extended beneath the proposed building limits, which would also be an unacceptable condition.
Finally, we analyzed an additional post construction seepage condition where the seepage zone began
about 23 to 24 feet below existing grade based upon a modified storm drainage system. Factors of
safety in this scheme indicated a critical value above FS = 1.2, which was greater than the
preconstruction condition. Although the factor of safety for the critical surface was less than the
generally accepted target value of FS = 1.3, this failure surface was farthest from the building and
began near the slope crest. Factors of safety generally increased for potential failure surfaces as they
moved closer to the building, with one failure surface with FS = 1.6 beyond the building limits. A
building surcharge load of 500 pounds per square foot (psf) was applied to model the effects of the
proposed building about 30 feet back from the crest of the slope. No discernible decrease in factor of
7
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
safety was found for the critical surfaces based upon the addition or increasing of this building load.
The stability results are included in Appendix C, and include the existing slope conditions for both Lots
3A/3B and 4A/4B, as well as two additional seepage conditions for Lots 3A/3B.
The stability consideration is heavily influenced by the potential for development of a seepage condition
due to infiltrated water from the proposed storm water system. There could also be seepage
contributions from other up gradient sources, which are beyond the control of the current development
and difficult to analyze. However, we believe our analysis of the current slope conditions reasonably
accounts for the up gradient sources as they presently exist. For purposes of our analysis, it has been
estimated that the silt with interbedded silty clay and lean clay layers will act as aquitards and tend to
confine infiltration in the silty sand strata in the upper portion of the slope, which is consistent with our
field and laboratory observations. Since the seepage is such a significant factor to slope stability, we
recommend consideration be given to a combination lined stormwater detention system that includes
deep insertion points into the silty sand layer encountered. This will have the effect of maintaining the
seepage level from the proposed development lower in the subsurface profile at the point on the lot that
is the furthest possible from the slope.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Based on the analyses described above, we conclude that the proposed development of Lots 3A/3B
will have no substantive negative impact on stability of the existing slope relative to the current status
under static conditions, based upon implementation of the recommendations contained herein. The
slope was shown to be moderately stable, with slightly less than the desired factors of safety of FS =
1.3 estimated for both the pre and post construction analyses. Reconfiguration of the existing site
layout for Lots 3A/3B by placing the building nearer to Village Loop and parking areas nearer the slope
would increase factors of safety for potential slope failures impacting the building, and therefore should
be considered. For development of Lots 3A/3B, we recommend some modification to a conventional
storm water infiltration system that would produce seepage conditions as discussed hypothetically
above. Ideally, the stormwater pond would abandoned entirely in favor of a closed stormwater
conveyance system that would discharge collected water off the hillside. However, based on
discussions with the project team, this does not sound possible. Therefore, as one alternative, it is
recommended that stormwater ponds include deep infiltration pipes that would inject stormwater to a
depth of about 15 feet +/- into layer of silty sand. The estimated depth to the silty sand layer is an
estimate based upon straight line interpolation of depths to silty sand encountered at the adjacent
Northwest Family Medicine building, Great Northern Dental building investigation, as well as the current
investigation. The deep insertion pipes should be placed as far from the slope crest as possible.
Consultation with the project Civil Engineer would be required for stormwater compliance with City of
Kalispell requirements. In concept, this stormwater system would include some surface infiltration
during pretreatment where stormwater would flow through a vegetated area en route to the stormwater
retention pond. The deep insertion points should be spread across the western side of the property in
order to spread out the stormwater entry points into the silty sand layer. Roof downspouts from the
building should be collected and routed to this stormwater pond as well. An additional alternative that
could be considered would be a pervious asphalt pavement system, which does not require a
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
stormwater pond, and thus would promote more uniform water infiltration rather than the more
concentrated infiltration from stormwater ponds. This option would tend to maintain existing site
drainage similar to the existing conditions. If a pervious pavement is planned, roof downspouts should
be discharged at grade as far away from the slope as possible and at as many locations as possible to
distribute the stormwater loading.
We conclude that the existing slope on Lots 4A/4B is reasonably stable in its present form. However,
we recommend a minimum 50 foot setback be maintained from the slope crest to building areas on Lots
4A/4B when they are developed as a best practice for site development in this sensitive area. We also
recommend that we be afforded the opportunity to review final plans for development to provide input
into storm drainage systems and assess their potential impact to slope stability.
The portion of the slope on Lots 3A/3B beyond the building limits may benefit from some minor
regrading to promote positive surface drainage away from the building and towards the slope (or
constructed to drain to the stormwater collection system if discharge beyond the slope is not permitted).
Some flattening of the upper portion of the slope on the property would also be beneficial; however, it
will be imperative to maintain the minimum soil cover atop the existing gravity sewer main. Also,
imported clay soils on the surface may help in this regard to promote more rapid surface drainage to the
slope face. If this work is planned, it should be performed during drier months and through use of
lightweight construction equipment to minimize slope instability. No additional height of overburden
material should be placed on the slope; rather, some material should first be removed and then
replaced with the clay material in this scheme. The clay material should be water conditioned away
from the slope, then placed in thin lifts with static compaction only via sheepsfoot roller or rubber tired
rollers or construction equipment only. Any surcharge loading of the area near the slope crest (within
25 feet +/-) should be strictly minimized; this would including loading from snow piles, vehicles, or soil
overburden.
The existing sanitary sewer and natural gas infrastructure that is currently in place near the slope crest
does present some potential concerns with regard to bank stability. Utility trenches can often serve as
a water conduit where seepage can enter the trenches and (especially in the case of the sanitary sewer
that is set to a grade) migrate through the bedding along the utility alignment. Given the sensitivity of
the slope and potential for impacts to slope stability, we recommend discussing a utility relocation with
the City of Kalispell In our opinion, it would behoove all future development within this subdivision on
properties that border the slope to relocate the sewer main to another location.
The most sensitive time for slope failures tends to be during the spring snowmelt period, where
saturated conditions are more likely. Excessive or rapid snowmelt can exacerbate these risks.
Therefore, we suggest that snow piles be removed from the site during high volume snow events, or at
a minimum snow piles be distributed around the perimeter of the lot as far as possible from the slope.
The developer and property owners need to be fully aware that shallow slope failures are possible
along the slope face as a result of saturation of the uncontrolled fill portion and/or resulting from long-
9
Village Loop Slope Evaluation w LPINE
Village Heights Subdivision ■ Kalispell, Montana
November 7, 2017 ■ Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 17-917 'GEOTECHNICAL
term soil creep. This could be due to water infiltration from the existing utility trenches or up gradient
water sources.
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
during or after construction. If variations appear, we 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.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your project, and look
forward in 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
M =_
Kagan M. Rutz, P.E.
Principal/Senior Engineer
Attachments: Appendix A Exploration Location Plan & Boring Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C Stability Analyses
10
fa'aN..�..��.i���i F._ .e •i.. Jam- I . �;
s
Q
x
W
z
O
ca
Q
a
�
�
J
}.i
W
U
LU
J
J
0
LU
r_
N
N
d
O
O
Y
L
J
O
w
Q
W
Q
F-
00
LU
_ v
`°
U_
Ln
Ln
N
Z
=
�
Y �p
a
C
- Lu
LL
CLO
o
Y n
wry
CDl�D
CU
V
I�.
cu
N Ln
� N
7
Ln
a
�
L
z
0
0
Z
a
Ln
C
�
N
t
Q
x
W
H
z
W
0
z
fC
(>
a
z
0
O
Q
D
cHc
G
V
J
Q
J
0
i
W
LU
a
W
O
a
J
Z;
0
<
L-
Ln
O
a
O.
0
0
W
J
LU
J
H
200
LU
_ v
lD
U_
N
Z
=
�
Y �p
a v
c v
W
a
CL 0
Y �
W
V
III,
GJ Ln
Z N
7 O
H �
a
o
N
N
z
O
r-I
O
z
a�i
ai
a
Ln
C
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-1
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation Project No.: 17-917
Client: AMI - Kyle Reddig Date: 9/20/17
Location: see exploration location map Elevation:
Driller. In N Out Logged By: Cliff Clark
Drill Rig: CME 45
Depth to Water> Initial 49.9' At Completion
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
OL Organic silt topsoil, dark brown, moist, 2"
SM thick
I a Silty SAND, brown, damp to wet, loose
4 4
-5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4
.............................................................
13
ML SILT with interbedded silty sand and silty clay, 25 3
brown, wet, soft to medium stiff, with rust
colored mottling 25 100
21 5
silty sand layer from 11.5'-12.0'
25 1 1 1 5
silty sand layer from 15.5'-16.5'
22 1 1 1 6
silty sand layer from 20.1'-20.6'
31 93
......................................................
CL-ML Silty CLAY, pinkish brown, wet, soft, 27 3
laminated with occassional sand laminae
ML SILT with interbedded silty sand and lean clay,
27 I 4
light brown, wet, soft
.................................................
Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose, with rust
SM colored mottling
ALPI N E
—GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-1
Project:
Village Loop Slope
ELEVATION/
SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS
DEPTH
AND TEST DATA
- 40
- 45
50
55
- 60
- 65
70
75
Evaluation Project No.: 17-917
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
USCS Description NM DID DEPTH N CURVE
10 30 50
SM Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose, with rust 29
colored mottling
26 2
ML SILT with interbedded silty sand and lean clay,
light greenish brown, wet, soft
...................................... SM Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense to 9
loose
.............................................................
CL Lean CLAY, light tan, wet, medium stiff to 32.0
soft, with silty sand from 50.0'-51.0', abrupt
boundary
29
.............................................. SM Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose 27
.............................................................
MIL SILT with interbedded lean clay, yellowish 27
brown, wet, medium stiff
End of Boring DH-1 at 62.0'
15
9
3
8
I
Figure
PAGE 2OF2
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-2
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation
Client: AMI - Kyle Reddig
Location: see exploration location map
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 45
Depth to Water> Initial 52.6' At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
o® .......................................
-5
10
15
20
25
30
r- 35 KA�
Bulk sample from 2. S'-7. S'
Project No.: 17-917
Date: 9/20/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
NM DID DEPTH I N I C U R V E
OL Organic silt topsoil, dark brown, moist, 3"
FILL thick
.....................................................
FILL, sandy silt, light grey, damp, medium
dense to loose
6
.......................................... SM Silty SAND, light brown, damp to wet, loose 3
06
.............................................................
ML SILT with interbedded silty clay and silty sand, 23
brown, wet, medium stiff, with rust colored
mottling
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND with interbedded laminated lean
clay, brown, wet, loose, with rust colored
mottling
19
25
.............................................................
ML SILT trace sand with interbedded lean clay, 31
brown, wet, soft, with rapid dilatancy
.............................................................
CL Lean CLAY, light brown, wet, soft, with 30 92
interbedded silty sand laminae 31
30
15
4
4
6
9
10
2
3
LPI E
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-2
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation Project No.: 17-917
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N CURVE
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
CL Lean CLAY, light brown, wet, soft, with
interbedded silty sand laminae
...............................................
SM Silty SAND with interbedded silty clay, brown, 8 9
damp, loose
40
45
50
- 55
- 60
- 65
70
75
san.. ........... I
ML SILT with interbedded silty sand d, light brown31 4,
wet, medium stiff
SM Silty SAND, brown, wet, medium dense 26 13
CL...........................................
Lean CLAY with interbedded silty SAND33,
light brown, wet, stiff
silty sand layer from 61.5'-62.0'
End of Boring DH-2 at 62.0'
12
36 1 1 1 12
I
Figure
PAGE 2OF2
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-3
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation
Client: AMI - Kyle Reddig
Location: see exploration location map
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 45
Depth to Water> Initial 52.7' At Completion
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS,
SAMPLERS USCS Description
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
o® .......................................
-5
10
15
20
25
30
r-35 rfflV�
Bulk sample from 2.5 V'-7.5'
Project No.: 17-917
Date: 9/21/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
NM DID DEPTH I N I C U R V E
OIL Organic silt topsoil, dark brown, moist, 3"
FILL thick
.....................................................
FILL, sandy silt with intermixed gravel and
topsoil, brown, moist, stiff to medium stiff 8
... ........................ 5............ 7
Silty SAND, brown . . .
, mo.i.....
st to wet, medium
dense to loose
2
.............................................................
ML SILT with interbedded silty clay and silty sand, 24
wet, medium stiff to soft, with rust colored
mottling
28
.......................................... SM Silty SAND with interbedded silt, brown, wet, 20
loose
.............................................................
ML SILT with interbedded lean clay and silty sand, 30
brown, wet, medium stiff to soft
oversaturated from 24.0'-25.0'
29
.....................................................
Lean CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff,
with silty sand layer from 343'- 34.8', abrupt
CL boundary 31
SILT trace sand, brown, wet, medium stiff,
ML with slow dilatancv
17
5
5
5
3
6
5
3
7
ALPI N E
—GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-3
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation Project No.: 17-917
ELEVATION/ I SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DID I DEPTH N CURVE
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
40
45
50
55
- 60
- 65
70
75
ML SILT trace sand, brown, wet, medium stiff,
CL with slow. dilatancy 31 91
Lean CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff
27
...................................................... SIM Silty SAND, brown, moist to wet, medium 6
dense
4
32
.............................................................
CL Lean CLAY with interbedded silty sand, 26
brown, wet, soft
silty sand layer from 58.5'-59.0' and 59.0'-60',
abrupt boundary
End of Boring DH-3 at 60.0'
4
18
13
4
ure
PAGE 2OF2
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-4
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation
Client: AMI - Kyle Reddig
Location: see exploration location map
Driller: InN Out
Drill Rig: CME 45
Project No.: 17-917
Date: 9/21/17
Elevation:
Logged By: Cliff Clark
Depth to Water> Initial 53.0' At Completion 7 -
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD DEPTH N C U R V E
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
�o
10 30 50
-5
- 10
15
20
25
30
r- 35 KA ,
Bulk sample from 2.5 V'-7.5'
OL Organic silt topsoil, dark brown, moist, 3"
FILL thick
.....................................................
FILL, silty sand with intermixed gravel, 9
brown, moist, stiff to soft
edge of sewer trench with bedding gravels, 7
silty sand from 7.5'-10.0' 13
..pL................................................... 11
Organic silt topsoil, dark brown, moist to wet,
soft
.............................................................
ML SILT with interbedded lean clay and silty sand,
wet, soft to medium stiff, with rust colored 25
mottling
.......................................... SM Silty SAND with interbedded silt, brown, wet, 19
loose
26
ML SILT with interbedded lean clay and silty sand, 27
light brown, wet, medium stiff
43
CL Lean CLAY, brown, wet, soft to medium stiff,
29
with occassional silty sand laminae
8
4
1
3
4
0
5
4
2
ALPI N E
—GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
NO.: DH-4
Project: Village Loop Slope Evaluation Project No.: 17-917
ELEVATION/ I SOIL SYMBOLS, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SAMPLERS USCS Description NM DD I
DEPTH N CURVE
DEPTH AND TEST DATA
40
- 45
50
55
- 60
- 65
70
75
CL Lean CLAY, brown, wet, soft to medium stiff,
with occassional silty sand laminae
28
.............................................................
SM Silty SAND, brown, moist to wet, medium 8
dense 11 91
......................................... CL Lean CLAY with interbedded silty sand 27
brown, wet, medium stiff
SM Silty SAND, brown, wet, medium dense
25
.............................................................
CL Lean CLAY with interbedded silty sand, 7
brown, wet, soft
End of Boring DH-4 at 60.0'
7
13
5
17
2
Figure
PAGE 2OF2
500
- -
- 1000
-
-2000
500
- - - -
- • 1000
- -
- 2000
- ----
500R
- - - -
- 1000R
- - -
-- 2000R
-0.010
2.00
1.50
-0.005
1.60
1.40
/0,0
c
N
0.000
N
N 1.20
�
1.00
c
N_
0.005
N
m 0.80
t
2
0.010
N 0.60
r
0.40
0.015
0.20
0.00
0.020
0.0000
0.0500 0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.3500
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.3500
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
2000.00
1750.00
1500.00
1250.00
w
Q.
In
In
r 1000.00
Cn
L
vn 750.00
500.00
250.00
0.00
0 500
1000
1500
2000 2500
Normal
Stress (psf)
•
Initial O - - - Residual
maximum recorded shear
stress reported, line represents linear regression based on data
reported
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
s
Specimen Classification: Silty Clay CL-ML
Shear Rate: 0.002 in/min
Specimen Identification
Normal Stress s
Dry Densityc
Moisture Content %
Shear Stress s
DH-1 10
500
98.37
26.27
459
DH-1 10.2
1000
100.95
25.85
870
DH-1 10.4
2000
101.55
23.57
1766
Project: V Loop
Location: Kalispell, MT
BIG SKY SUBSURFACE Direct Shear Test
Geotechnical Engineering Consulting (ASTM D3080)
Job Number: 17-43
Date: 10/ 17/2017
Plate 1
1000 - - - 2000 -4000
3.50
3.00
2.50
x 2.00
N
1.50
N
`m
t 1.00
N
0.50
0.00
0.0)00 0.0500 0.1)00 0.1 00 0.2 00 0.2 00 0.3 0
-0.50
Horizontal Displacement (in)
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
In
5 2000.00
In
In
N
L
V!
m 1500.00
s
Cn
1000.00
500.00
1000 - - - - - • 2000 - - - 4000
-0.010
-0.005
c
'c 0.000
N
E
d
u
c 0.005
0
rc2 0.010
d
0.015
0.020
0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500
Horizontal Displacement (in)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
• Initial Normal Stress (psf)
maximum recorded shear stress reported, line represents linear regression based on data reported
Specimen Classification: Silt with Sand (ML)
3000 3500 4000 4500
Shear Rate: 0.006 in/min
Specimen Identification
Normal Stress s
Dry Densityc
Moisture Content %
Shear Stress s
DH-1 24.4
1000
93.3
30.5
711
DH-1 24
2000
94.2
29.7
1473
DH-1 23.8
4000
91.4
31.8
2931
Project: V Loop
Location: Kalispell, MT
BIG SKY SUBSURFACE Direct Shear Test
Geotechnical Engineering Consulting (ASTM D3080)
Job Number: 17-43
Date: 10/ 17/2017
Plate 2
1000
- - -
2000
-4000
1000
- - - - - • 2000
-
- - 4000
-0.008
3.50
-0.006
3.00
-0.004
c
2.50
_
{
E 0.000
2.00
c°
d
c 0.002
N
1.50
N_
0 0.004
�
d
N 1.00
r 0.006
0.008
0.50
0.010
0.00
0.012
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.0000 0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
C
to
5 2000.00
In
In
N
L
V!
1500.00
m
s
Cn
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
• Initial Normal Stress (psf)
maximum recorded shear stress reported, line represents linear regression based on data reported
Specimen Classification: Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Shear Rate: 0.01 in/min
Specimen Identification
Normal Stress s
Dry Densityc
Moisture Content %
Shear Stress s
DH-1 45.4
1000
89.6
10.9
814
DH-1 45.6
2000
95.1
10.7
1515
DH-1 remold
4000
88
11.4
2917
Project: V Loop
Location: Kalispell, MT
BIG SKY SUBSURFACE Direct Shear Test
Geotechnical Engineering Consulting (ASTM D3080)
Job Number: 17-43
Date: 10/ 17/2017
Plate 3
Particle Size Analysis
_ o00
co M N n � M ik 3k tk tk tk tk tk tk
100
T-'� 77
90
80
70
Of
uJ
Z 60
LL
Z 50
LU
Of
40
uJ
30
20
10
0
100
10 1 0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3„
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt
Clay
O
3
97
❑
4
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
17
O
0
0
0
0
0
78
22
LL
PL
D85
D60
D50
D30
D15
D10
C
C
O
NV
NP
❑
NV
NP
❑
NV
NP
0.1501
0.1135
0.1027
0.0849
O
NV
NP
0.1790
0.1404
0.1247
0.0898
Material Description
USCS
AASHTO
O silt
ML
❑ silt
ML
❑ silty sand
SM
A-2-4(0)
O silty sand
SM
A-2-4(0)
Project No. 17-917
Client: AMI - Kyle Reddig
Remarks:
Project: Village Loop Slope
Evaluation
OF.M. 0.01
O Source of Sample: DH-1
Depth: 40.0
EIF.M: 0.01
❑ Source of Sample: DH-2
Depth: 44.0
ZT.M. 0.16
❑ Source of Sample: DH-3
Depth: 53.0
OSource of Sample: DH-4 Depth: 44.0
,aL P I N E
_=.GEOTECHNICAL
Figure
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX
60
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
0�0
G�
•
■
c�-ML ML or OL MH or OH
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY
SYMBOL SOURCE NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX USCS
• DH-1 51.0 32.0 21 35 14 CL
■ DH-2 60.0 36 17 28 11 CL
♦ DH-3 37.0 27 18 31 13 CL
♦ DH-1 40.0 26 NP NV NP ML
♦ DH-2 44.0 31 NP NV NP ML
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY
SYMBOL SOURCE NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX USCS
• DH-1 51.0 32.0 21 35 14 CL
■ DH-2 60.0 36 17 28 11 CL
♦ DH-3 37.0 27 18 31 13 CL
♦ DH-1 40.0 26 NP NV NP ML
♦ DH-2 44.0 31 NP NV NP ML
s
x
W
Z
O
O
Q
Q
O
D
Vf
to
w
LU
�x
O
J
w
LLI
J
L
m
N
Q
O
w
(D
O
Q
J
J
F
O
W
W<
Gl T
Van
C r,
� N
Z
Y
=
Q o
c
�w
a
LL
�0
L.0
y 01
i t0
V ri
N
7 O
F
�1.
n S
a
o
N
Ln
�
Z
-I
�
O
r-I
O
Z
ai
a
a
Ln
C
P:
Q
s
X
W
Z
O
O
CL
Q
O
(n
J
w
�
d
J
�X
O
J
w
LU
J
cn
d
a
M
O
J
Q
Q
O
M
w
(D
O
Q
J
J
F
g O
W
W<
C
GJ �
u
"
aLn
N
Z
Y �
=
a o
a
W
c
LL
�0
w
Y �
i t0
V n
a N
3 o
�: a
I�
n _
a
O
N
Ln
�
Z
r-I
�
O
r-I
O
Z
+,
a"i
ai
a
co
a
cn
G
s
X
W
ri
�
Z
C
O
O
U
J
i
�
W
CC
G
O
W
n-
u
o
�
N
w
a
O
a
N
a
O
Q
m
o
M
J
w
Q
(D
M
Q
�
J
O
J
F
20
Lu00
a
a �
U
an
r4
� N
Z
Y ID
=
azu o
a
c
W
LL
o
w
Y �
i t0
V n
a N
o
� a
I�
n _
a
o
N
Ln
�
Z
r-I
�
O
r-I
O
Z
+,
a"i
ai
a
co
a
cn
G
s
X
W
N
:m
Z
C
O
O
U
D
J
i
�
W
CC
G
O
W
n-
u
O
�
N
w
a
O
a
N
J
a
O
Q
m
O
M
J
w
Q
(D
M
Q
�
J
O
J
F
O
W
W<
C
GJ �
Van
Yf Ln
� N
Z
Y �
=
azu o
a
c
W
LL
w
Y �
i t0
V n
a N
3 o
�: a
I�
n _
a
O
N
Ln
�
Z
r-I
�
O
r-I
O
Z
+,
a"i
ai
a
co
a
cn
G