Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Site Plan Review Narrative 01-04-20 Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 1 of 13 NEXUS POINT SITE PLAN #19262 & MASTER SITE PLAN #19263 REVIEW COMMENTS NARRATIVE The City’s review comments for the Site Plan and Master Site Plan were the same for both applications so the narrative we have provided below have response for both. Section 2 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. These conditions are specific to the development. 1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. RESPONSE: This condition is acknowledged Section 3 – REQUIRED CODE CORRECTIONS Planning Division 1. Please submit all revisions using Corrections and Revisions cover sheet. Submit a full set of drawings (2 large format and 1 11x17) with revisions clouded. Include a table of contents will all drawings and their date of creation/revision. Ensure that the electronic version includes a fully updated, complete application. RESPONSE: Included in the resubmittal is a Corrections and Revisions cover sheet and 2 - 11x17 sets of the drawings. The project has substantially changed based on the city’s review comments and revisions clouds would not be appropriate. Included in this submittal is a fully updated and completed. 2. General comment. The information submitted for the master site plan is excessive. The level of detail required for the master site plan entitlement is less than for the site plan. For example, the civil details, landscaping, lighting and electrical is most applicable to the site plan application, not the master site plan. Design guidelines for the master plan can account for those items that must be addressed on the future lots for orientation, landscaping, parking lot timing of construction and integration, commercial open space requirements, etc. Phase I Site Plan should only show the plans for Phase I as a completely separate overall plan. RESPONSE: We agree but the application we initially submitted was completed in compliance with the City’s MSP Required Materials Checklist, which still shows that Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 2 of 13 all the items listed on the SP & SP1 Documents are required. To expedite the review, we have revised the submittal as requested by the reviewing staff. 3. General comment. Based on the scale and the proposed property lines, staff highly recommends this project be processed as a subdivision. The notes and lines that state “future property line (typ)” reflect that the parcel is going to be subdivided. As the “future property lines” stand, the blocks would not meet setback standards and easements (refuse, trails, access, and utility) would require to be displayed and recorded. RESPONSE: No subdivision of land is proposed. The “future lot lines” have been removed. 4. General comment. Ensure that the MSP and SP have different plans and documents based on the scope (i.e. elevations shouldn’t be with the MSP, phasing plan should be with MSP and not SP). RESPONSE: Although the information required for a MSP is the same as a site plan, per Form MSP, the resubmittal package has been revised to reduce the amount of information provided. 5. BMC 38.220.080. Site plan submittal requirements. The application does not meet the PLS and SP1 form requirements. Setbacks for all property lines not designated or shown correctly. RESPONSE: All of the setbacks are now shown on the Site Plan. 6. BMC 38.220.080.A.1.q Provide additional information required by this section including the addition of all landscaping in right of way into applicable phases, proposed dead end barriers, revegetation/weed control plan etc. Create a separate phasing plan. Phase I site plan needs to have an overall site plan that does not show any future phases on the property. RESPONSE: The landscape plan shows are the proposed landscaping adjacent to Phase I. Dead end barricades have been added to the south leg of South 21st. All the proposed public roadways are being constructed with Phase I. Do to the configuration of the site it is not possible to not show at least a portion of the future phases. 7. BMC 38.230.040. This project is subject for review of the Design Review Board. RESPONSE: This condition is acknowledged 8. BMC 38.230.130. A community design framework master plan is required with the master site plan application. A separate plan should be simple and not cluttered. Show setbacks based on block frontage standards and ensure that all buildings have publicly accessible Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 3 of 13 entrances based on the primary façade based on the block frontage in order of precedence (BMC 38.210.020). RESPONSE: We are unable to locate any information in the UDC directing what information is required by a ”Community Design Framework Master Plan”. Please provide this information so we can submit it. 9. BMC 38.410.040. The site is divided up into blocks. Blocks should not be more than 400 feet in length or width. In order to mitigate this, pedestrian or roadway easements should be included. Staff recommends that South 21st Avenue extend north towards the neighboring property and through the parking lot. This will help with breaking up the blocks as well as provide adequate connection and integration of transportation system to adjacent developments, which is a criteria for plan review (BMC 38.230.100). Although the property to the north is developed, if there would be any sort of redevelopment in the future, a transportation connection from the subject property to the neighboring property could be highly useful. RESPONSE: Based on additional review by the City, a road extension to the Grace Bible Church property is not required. A 30’ wide trail corridor access easement and trail has been provided to fulfill the block length requirement. A copy of the Draft Trail Easement is included in this submittal for City review. 10. BMC 38.410.060.C. Public utility easements. The city utility public utility easements must be released and reconvened prior to site plan approval. Public utility easement documents must be executed, notarized and submitted for review. The easements must be recorded prior to site plan approval. RESPONSE: The existing 10’ wide PUE falls within a proposed 60’ wide PUE. We do not see the need to abandon the 20’ wide easement. 11. BMC 38.410.060.E. Other easements. Provide reciprocal parking and access easement for drive access and parking between all lots. Reciprocal access and parking easement document must be executed, notarized and submitted for review. The easement must be recorded prior to site plan approval. RESPONSE: All of the development is on one lot. A shared access easement for one lot is not necessary. 12. BMC 38.410.100.A.2.f. A setback planting plan is required for the watercourse setback. Ensure it meets Zone 2 standards. RESPONSE: The wetlands were previously constructed and approved under a permit issued by the Corps of Engineers, which included extensive planting. The wetlands is within a deed restriction and a copy of the approved Deed Restriction is included in this application. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 4 of 13 13. BMC 38.420.060. The proposed park does not meet parkland frontage requirements. A variance is required. RESPONSE: The park frontage requirement has been resolved per Addi Jadin’s email. A copy of that email is included in this submittal. 14. BMC 38.510.020.F.2. There are new standards for multiple block frontage situations and a hierarchy of these standards. Ensure that the buildings along Arnold (Landscape block frontage) are have entrances facing the street and are articulated to meet this standard. RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to meet the new standards. 15. BMC 38.510.030.J. Special residential block frontage standards require ground floor living spaces to have a public/private transition element. It appears that option #1 is being utilized, however, the porch on the ground floor living area of all the buildings is not raise at least one foot above grade. It is also unclear if there is a gate to the ground level units from the sidewalk. Show that there is appropriate connectivity to the sidewalk. RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to meet the Special Residential Block Frontage standards. There is a minimum of 1’ difference between the finish floor of bedrooms and back of sidewalk for all the buildings facing a sidewalk or trail. 16. BMC 38.520.040.C.1. Clarify where the proposed gravel trail turns into a sidewalk on the north side. This gravel trail should also continue to the northern property boundary. The 8’ wide asphalt trail that is to be constructed in both phases should be constructed in the first phase to provide adequate connectivity and circulation. RESPONSE: The gravel trail is proposed to be constructed in the 50’ wetlands setback. The concrete sidewalks into the site will start at the 50’ setback line. The site plan has been revised to clarify this. 17. BMC 38.520.040.C.4. At least one walkway must be provided for every four rows of parking or at a maximum spacing of 200 feet. The parking lot on the north and on the west do not meet this standard. RESPONSE: A North-South sidewalk has been added to the north development area and an East-West sidewalk has been added to the future west development area. 18. BMC 38.520.060.B.2.e. Shared open space must be separate from ground level windows, streets, service areas and parking lots. Many of the common open space areas next to ground floor residences and the parking lot do not meet this standard. There are multiple shared open space areas that also do not feature any amenities for users. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 5 of 13 RESPONSE: The shared open space areas have been revised to provide for a 3’ wide separation from ground level windows, streets, service areas and parking lots. a. Opens space areas not dimensioned or annotated with area as required in form PLS. RESPONSE: The open space areas have been dimensioned and annotated with the area. b. Per the definition of open space, usable (BMC 38.700.140), many of the proposed open space areas do not meet this standard. Landscape separation cannot count towards open space requirements. It appears that the appropriate amount of open space has been accounted for, however, areas that do not meet the usable open space definition must be eliminated from the open space calculations. RESPONSE: The proposed shared open space areas have been revised to meet the standards. c. It is unclear where and what the Open Space Summary that is referenced on the cover page is. A clearer plan that shows the math of the patios, common open space, and community center should be provided by building and area. RESPONSE: The Open Space summary has been revised to be clearer. 19. BMC 38.530.050.E. Show weather protection over the main entrance of the clubhouse on elevations and entrance. RESPONSE: Weather protection has been added over the main entrance of the clubhouse. 20. General comment. Clarify the 5 shared parking spaces with office lot for parking lot E. Assume that the shared parking is a typo since it is only needed for lot D. RESPONSE: The site has been revised to no longer require the shared parking. 21. BMC 38.550.050.E. Street trees need to be shown on an overall Master Site Plan Landscape Plan. They need to be on shown along 19th as well as the internal streets. RESPONSE: The South 19th Street trees will be part of the South 19th widening project. We have shown the South 19th street trees on the Overall Master Site plan. The Overall Landscape Plan (Sheet L.S.1.0) shows the proposed boulevard street trees adjacent to the Phase I development areas. Solid Waste Division Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 6 of 13  The trash enclosure plan is acceptable, they just need to make sure that they have 50 feet straight approach to front of each refuse enclosure. Was too hard to tell from site plan map if there was the 50 feet. RESPONSE: The site plan is in compliance with this requirement. A 50’ long dashed line is shown in front of each Refuse Enclosure. Forestry Division  Current plan shows all boulevard trees as one species (Celtis occidentalis, Common hackberry). Forestry requires a minimum of two species for increased diversity. RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been revised to provide two different species on the street frontages. Celtis Occidentalis - Common hackberry is proposed along Arnold Street and Malus X ‘Jarmin’ TN – Marilee Crabapple is proposed along South 21st. Parks Department; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908  Planning comment #2 from Informal Application 18539 was not addressed. All parks must have frontage along 100% of their perimeter on public or private streets or roads or meet the criteria for a reduction to not less than 50%. Please provide specific analysis of the percentage of parkland frontage on public or private streets or roads for the Nexus Point proposal and describe how the criteria for the reduction are met. The amount and quality of frontage must be improved—for example, rather than fronting on private parking lots, where frontage must be adjacent to developed lots, buildings should be cited along the park or a yard to mitigate. Consider showing that every parking space missing from frontage reduction is provided or that other mitigation is provided.  Staff does not support the proposed ratio of parkland to Improvements-in-lieu of parkland. Required parkland contribution is 2.58 acres with the equivalent of 1.29 acres to be provided as cash-in-lieu (or improvements-in-lieu) of parkland. The applicant’s proposal of 1.18 acres of land is only 45.7% of the required parkland contribution. In an area of high-density residential development and with a park not meeting frontage requirements, the significant reduction of parkland does not appear to meet the criteria for acceptance of cash-in-lieu as established in Resolution 4784. Upon resubmittal, please address the criteria for the CIL request that goes beyond the required equivalent of 4 du/acre at 1.40 acres.  Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee discussed this item at their meeting on July 25th but did not take any action because of the aforementioned code corrections and request for further clarification. The CIL proposal will be reviewed by the committee upon revision. RESPONSE: The park frontage requirement has been resolved per Addi Jadin’s email. A copy of that email is included in this submittal. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 7 of 13 Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 8 of 13 ENGINEERING COMMENTS: General Comments 1. Provide documents for the Public Street and Utility easements on Arnold Street and South 21st Avenue. RESPONSE: A Draft Public Street and Utility Easement for Arnold Street and South 21st Avenue is included in this submittal for City review. 2. Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.410.130. The payment of cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights payment needs to be made prior to Site Plan approval. RESPONSE: This condition is acknowledged. 3. No SID document was included in the electronic submittal for review. RESPONSE: The City’s website does not show any SID for this property. Stormwater 4. The application provided storm drainage calculations, but no description of the proposed system. A description is required. Note that the description should be for Phase I only. A full review will be completed after the entire document is provided. RESPONSE: The Stormwater Management Design Report has been updated with this submittal. 5. Provide an exhibit of the drainage plan. Include and label drainage basins and phases. The drainage plan needs to provide the flow paths maximum distance traveled to verify the time of concentration. RESPONSE: The Stormwater Exhibit has been provided in the Stormwater Management Design Report. 6. Remove references to the Retention basin, because the pond discharges, it is a detention basin. RESPONSE: The basin is actually both a retention and detention basin to provide for the 0.5” rainfall requirement. 7. Provide the 25 year storm design calculations for the proposed culvert and all inlets. RESPONSE: 25-year storm design calculations are provided in the Stormwater Management Design Report with this submittal. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 9 of 13 8. See the DSSP (Design Standards and Specifications Policy) for maximum pond depth allowed. RESPONSE: The proposed surface stormwater pond has been revised to reduce the depth of the detention basin to less than 1.5’. A subsurface retention basin has been designed below the detention basin for the required 0.5” stormwater run-off. 9. The Engineer is proposing stormwater facilities in locations known to have a high groundwater table. The provided Geotechnical Summary states groundwater was encountered at “4.0 to 6.0 feet on the west side”, but fails to specify the groundwater depth for Test Pit #1, which is nearest to the location of the proposed stormwater facility. The Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer confirm that groundwater will not impact the function or maintenance of the proposed facility. Industry guidance recommends a three-foot minimum separation from the bottom of the proposed facility to the underlying groundwater table. RESPONSE: On page 1 of the Allied Letter report, it is stated under Soil and Groundwater Conditions, “Groundwater depths were at 4.0 to 6.0 feet on the west side”, where the pond is proposed. The bottom of the proposed subsurface retention stormwater facility is 5-6’ below ext’g ground. In addition, there is a stream approximately 50’ west of the proposed pond and the water levels in the stream were approximately 7’ below ext’g ground, indicating groundwater is even deeper than estimated in the report. In addition, with the installation of the sewer and water mains groundwater levels have historically dropped likely due to the conduit created by the washed rock gravel bedding material along the pipe. 10. The Engineer is proposing to locate sections of the storm drain under the site's curb and gutter. The Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer relocate the storm drain as its proposed location will make future spot repairs and replacements logistically challenging and costly. RESPONSE: The storm sewer is design to run between curb inlet/manholes. Revising the design to move the piping away from the curbline would incur substantially more cost in additional piping and manholes in the street. It would also put the storm sewer closer to the sanitary sewer main which creates new conflicts in the event the sanitary sewer needs to be repaired. We were not able to find any reference in the design standards not allowing a storm sewer under a curb in the city’s design standards. 11. A geotechnical report is a summary and does not provide specific details for the various test pits. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 10 of 13 RESPONSE: On page 1 of the Allied Letter report gives a brief description of the soils. 12. The Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual (Manual) outlines environmental, design, construction, and maintenance considerations related to stormwater infiltration basins (Section 5.2). The Manual is available at www.bozeman.net/stormwater. At a minimum, the Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer consider the following:  Contributing Drainage Area  Soil Characteristics  Depth to Groundwater  Site Topography  Land Use and Considerations of Surrounding Area  Community and Environmental Considerations  Design Components: i. Infiltration Cell Volume ii. Inlet and Conveyance iii. Pretreatment Forebay iv. Infiltration Cell Shape v. Infiltration Cell Bottom vi. Outlet Structure (Optional) vii. Embankment and Overflow Spillway viii. Maintenance Access ix. Flood Control x. Vegetation xi. Construction Considerations xii. Maintenance RESPONSE: A SWPPP Application is included in this resubmittal 13. The Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer provide a maintenance plan that includes, at a minimum, the following items:  Inspection protocols  Types and frequency of maintenance activities  Equipment access points and required apparatus types  Permitting and waste disposal considerations  Short, mid, and long-term budget estimates  Financing mechanisms RESPONSE: A maintenance plan is included in the Stormwater Management Design Report which is included in this resubmittal. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 11 of 13 Traffic Impact Study 14. Page 3, third paragraph, third line sentence should read “approximately 0.5 miles north of Graf Street”. 15. Page 9: Justify the estimate that ten percent of trips would be pedestrian or bicycle trips. Previous studies around the MSU campus show pedestrian and bike trips drop off substantially greater than a half mile from campus. RESPONSE: The TIS has been revised per the City review comments Cover – Site Plan 16. Provide a sheet with a legend for line types and symbols. RESPONSE: Legends have been added to the drawing set. C1.0 Overall Site Plan 17. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan difficult to read. RESPONSE: The existing topo lines have been removed and are shown only on the Grading Plan 18. Remove any linework (buildings and parking lot) from Phase II. This Plan should show scope related only this Phase. RESPONSE: The drawing set has been revised accordingly 19. Remove any linework for items that are existing that will be removed during demo (see telephone pedestal in Arnold and tree along Arnold). Provide a separate demo sheet as necessary. RESPONSE: The drawing set has been revised accordingly 20. Explain in the narrative how snow will be stored within the detention basin. What type of equipment will be used to move it off the road and parking areas over the curb and sidewalk? Additionally, the maintaining entity for the property needs to make sure both the inlet and outlet are not blocked. RESPONSE: Adequate snow storage areas are shown on the site plan. In the event that the city experiences a higher than normal snow year the owner will contract to have the snow removed from the site as required to provide the Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 12 of 13 minimum parking spaces. We are unable to specify specifically what type of snow removal equipment will be used as that will be determined by what company the owner hires. C1.1 Site Plan North 21. If Parking Lot A is planned to be split between two lots, mutual access agreements will be required. An emergency access easement may be required as well. RESPONSE: Subdivision of the lots are no longer proposed. All the development is on one lot. A mutual access agreement is not required for one lot. 22. Verify the depth of cover for the proposed sewer main crossing under the creek. RESPONSE: The depth of cover at the stream crossing is approx. 5’. Final design has not yet been completed. The sewer design will be completed per the City and DEQ requirements 23. Verify in which phase the existing culvert will be shortened. RESPONSE: Since the initial submittal the Lantern Street culvert crossing has been revised. The Corps of Engineers requested that the Lantern Street Culvert be removed and a bridge installed to minimize the impacted for the Arnold Street crossing impact. Permit for this work has been issued by the Corps and a copy is included in this submittal. C1.1 Site Plan East 24. BMC 38.410.070.B.2. Note for the Infrastructure Submittal that water service lines cannot exceed 150 feet in length (see Club House). RESPONSE: The longest proposed water service is 143’ to serve the Club House. C1.3 Grading and Drainage Plan 25. Complete a final Site Grading and Drainage Plan to allow for a full review. See the Design Standards and Specifications Policy Section II.B. RESPONSE: The grading plan and drainage plan has been broken into 2 separate sheets for better clarification. 26. Include sufficient spot elevation data and invert elevations. RESPONSE: The grading and drainage plans have been finalized. Nexus Point Site Plan & Master Site Plan Review Narrative Page 13 of 13 27. Include the maximum water surface elevation for the retention/detention basin. RESPONSE: The maximum stormwater pond elevation is the overflow elevation of the flow control structure weir, and is shown on the drainage plan. 28. Label existing contours at the perimeter to ensure tie in to adjacent property/future phases. RESPONSE: The existing contours are shown substantially lighter than the proposed. We have added labels calling out the contours elevations as requested. 29. Provide the following on the plan: a. Material/type of storm drain. b. Detail for 48” Control Manhole. As shown, the Engineer’s design is likely to result in short-circuiting. c. Numerous pipe sections do not include pipe diameter, material, and slope information. RESPONSE: The additional information requested has been added to the Drainage Plan sheet. END OF NARRATIVE