The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-12-20 Public Comment - A. Hoitsma - Idaho Pole and URDFrom:Amy Kelley Hoitsma To:Cyndy Andrus; Terry Cunningham; Michael Wallner; I-Ho Pomeroy; Agenda; Jennifer Madgic Cc:BOHPublicComment@gallatin.mt.gov; Chandler Dayton; reno walsh Subject:Fwd: Idaho Pole and URD Date:Thursday, November 12, 2020 12:04:27 PM Attachments:Idaho Pole Letter NENA.pdf2020-03-19_NxNE INF Full Plans at IPC site.pdf Mayor Andrus and Bozeman City Commissioners; I was deeply disappointed to hear Commissioners stating at Tuesday’s meeting that no one had ever seen a development proposal for the Idaho Pole site—nor knew of any in existence—because Chandler Dayton and I sent each of you the email below in September (Ms. Madgic excepted, although we sent the same document to the Planning Board on October 5) with theNXNE site proposal attached (which we received from MT DEQ). The correspondence, with attachments, was posted on the City website under City Commission\Correspondence\PublicComment: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/224677/Electronic.aspx Did you not receive that email? Was the attachment too large to come through? Our letter was attached as well, so I am concerned that you perhaps never read our letter, which we workedvery hard on to share critical information for your consideration. The existence of a development proposal has also been mentioned in the Chronicle in two separate articles: [Sunday, 8 November 2020] “Though a concept plan submitted to the city earlier thisyear laid out loose plans for a mixed-use development with residential on upper floors, Justin Alexander, a principal architect working on the project, said the potential buyershave scrapped those plans and are looking to head in a more industrial direction.” [Today, 12 November 2020] “So, while most of the concerns with the district center on the impacts of potential development, those questions will largely have to wait until adevelopment proposal is actually being considered. But at the same time, it’s well known there is a development group moving toward getting a development proposal forthe property, and local health officials have expressed concerns with contaminants on the site and how construction might affect their spread.” Please reply to me directly and let me know that you have received this email and that you canopen the attachment. Also please let me know if you have a different email address that would be preferable for future correspondance. All the best, Amy Kelley Hoitsma406-581-1513 aok@mcn.netaokworks.com Begin forwarded message: From: Chandler Dayton <chandler.dayton@gmail.com>Subject: Idaho Pole and URDDate: September 29, 2020 at 9:16:10 PM MDTTo: BOHPublicComment@gallatin.mt.gov, candrus@bozeman.net, tcunningham@bozeman.net, mwallner@bozeman.net, ipomeroy@bozeman.net,agenda@bozeman.netCc: Amy Kelley <aok@mcn.net> Dear members of the City Commission and City-County Board of Health, Please accept the letter attached as public comment on the community discussionabout Idaho Pole and a URD creation for the area. We hope the letter will provide an overview of all the safety issues we have uncovered and become a basis forfurther discussion. Please also find a copy of the NXNE concept plan that was given to the regulatory agencies for review in June this year. We know that this is not a formal proposal,and we submit it for illustrative purposes. It is very useful in thinking about the site's multiple development obstacles. We look forward to continuing the dialogue. Very Respectfully, Chandler Dayton and Amy Kelley Hoitsma To: Bozeman City Commission and Gallatin City-County Board of Health From: Chandler Dayton, 716 E. Peach St, Bozeman, MT and Amy Kelley Hoitsma, 706 E. Peach St, Bozeman, MT Date:29 September 2020 RE:Consideration of URD designation for Idaho Pole Site Honorable members of the Commission and Board of Health: We have been researching issues pertaining to the partially delisted Idaho Pole Superfund site on behalf of our neighbors in the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA). We seek to establish a broader discussion with greater transparency on all of the issues related to potential future development at this site. Unfortunately, we feel that the process for URD creation has been shutting down this broader discussion until after a URD is created. The first step in the creation of a URD is a determination of “blight,” which the Commission voted unanimously to approve for this site. The presentation at the September 15 Commission meeting framed the discussion on the issues very narrowly, and did not share with the Commission many of the already known facts about the site. Those of us who spoke in opposition to the “blight” designation were dismayed that our questions and comments were dismissed as “premature.” Although never mentioned in the “blight” presentation, the DEQ FAQ document (posted at https://www.bozeman.net/government/economic-development/pole-yard-urban-renewal-district) gives an overview of the Institutional Controls (ICs—aka land use restrictions) existing on the site. [These ICs are also published in detail in an 89-page document available from EPA.] There also exists an 18-page concept plan from “North by Northeast” (NXNE), which was not shared with the public by City staff, but which in fact became a public document as soon as it was delivered to EPA and DEQ for review early this summer. The existence of this concept plan and its details were not discussed at the Commission meeting, even though it was mentioned in David Fine’s 15 September memorandum to the City Commission on this issue: “Economic Development staff are working with a development group that has a transformative vision for this brownfield area in the core of our community. Staff expects that the group will submit a development application for review within the next year.” With all due respect for city economic development staff, this concept proposal, like any plan that might come forward in the future, contains details of the critical infrastructure needed in order to develop the site. In fact, the existence of this concept proposal is what is driving the short timeline the City has set for itself to approve a URD for the area. This document is actually quite useful in helping identify the missing infrastructure in this area. This can help frame the discussion about the details of a TIF or other funding mechanism to potentially assist in development of the area: a discussion that should be held in full view of the public well before a URD is formed and/or an actual plan is submitted to the City. Such a discussion will help you and the taxpayers understand the limits of tax increment financing (TIF) for these particular improvements (needed for any development to go forward) in this very problematic area where public safety is a concern—a concern that is shared by members of the Gallatin City-County Board of Health [“Health board concerned with potential development at Superfund site near Bozeman,” Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 29 September 2020]. This is a complex issue and we apologize for the length of this letter, but we want to share with you what we have learned through review of the NXNE concept plan and the ICs on the site, as well as in discussions with representatives of EPA and MDEQ. Critical Infrastructure needs already identified: 1.A connector route from L Street to I-90, downtown, and points west, so that industrial traffic is not routed through the NE neighborhood. The concept plan shows development of Front Street, immediately south of the current grade RR crossing at L Street. This is not in the 2017 Transportation Master Plan; this City right-of-way is designated as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, which has already been approved. Might this money be better spent solving the RR grade crossing problem and emergency vehicle access (discussed later in this letter)? 2.Tie-in for sewer at Gold Ave. and routing of sewer from there to the highest point at the end of Cedar St, which is a dead end. 3.Water main routing to serve the area. The NXNE proposal shows one water main connecting from the north end of Broadway, routed under the multi-track rail yard to Cedar St, and continuing along the existing streets to a main on Pear St. What would be the cost of tunneling under the active railroad tracks? 4.Soil management plans. These need to be approved by both MDEQ & EPA for all critical infrastructure in the Controlled Groundwater Area, which is most of the site. This might entail the removal of contaminated soils and replacement with clean backfill. It is difficult to imagine development at this site without disturbance of these contaminated soils. 5.There has yet to be identified a secondary emergency egress route from this area. Currently the only egress is L Street. Because of the RR yard near north Broadway and the wetlands further east, and the entrapment of the entire site by Interstate 90 and the railroad, this will be difficult and expensive to solve. Other infrastructure needs that would need to be considered: 1.Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lights 2.Parks, open space, and trails—possibly connecting the wetlands to the east Institutional Controls put in place by EPA and MDEQ as part of the Superfund cleanup, to ensure the cleanup remains protective of public health (from DEQ FAQ) i.No residential development or use of the property that is zoned M-1 and M-2 unless approved by EPA and DEQ.4 ii.No excavation to saturated soil or groundwater within the CGA without a soil management plan approved by EPA and MDEQ.5 iii.No use of groundwater within the CGA for any purpose. Additional Restrictions for the TSA (treated soil area) iv.No construction, other than surface paving, landscaping, curbs, light standards, traffic signs, foundations (and related above-ground structures), utilities and greenways. v.No excavation deeper than 12 inches without a soil management plan approved by EPA and MDEQ. Owner shall maintain a 12-inch protective cover of soil. A 12-inch gravel layer, asphalt overlay, or other cover that prevents erosion and which maintains the integrity of the remedy can be substituted for clean soil. Questions and concerns from the neighborhood: 1.Will the City seek to clean up the contaminated soils that still exist at the Idaho Pole site? In his September 15th presentation, Economic Development Director Brit Fontenant, in reference to the site and TIF use, suggested that the TIF was needed for the critical infrastructure so that the developer could “afford to remove the contaminated soils” (26K cubic ft on the 4 acres of TSA). Does this mean the city would ask the developer to do so? There is no indication of this in the NXNE concept. In public comment at the September 15th City Commission meeting, Nolan Campbell (the realtor for the site still owned by Idaho Pole) claimed that his client’s plan would make the area safer. Our review of the NXNE concept plan concludes that it only follows the ICs for a 12” cap of soil or an asphalt cover on the TSA. While the ICs prohibit residential development, the NXNE includes residential by placing it above commercial development. The areas of contaminated soil are to be paved over for surface parking, as well as for “potential future parkland dedication.” Does this make the area safer for workers, potential future residents, and visitors? The EPA appears to be fine with the current plan using asphalt and 12” soil cover, provided the developer follows the protocols outlined on Top 10 Questions to Ask When Buying a Superfund Site (PDF), which so far has not been initiated (according to conversation with Roger Hoogerheide, EPA). Whether both EPA and MDEQ would be ‘fine’ with the residential on the second story is another matter. The question won’t be addressed until there is a “Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser” who has done due diligence on required steps AND has submitted a signed formal development proposal. (RH, EPA) When other developments for Superfund sites that were also restricted to industrial uses were allowed to add residential on the upper floors, residential use was restricted to adults only. (Keith Large, MDEQ) We would request that, if the City wants a mix of uses in development at this site—including family housing, play areas, etc.—then the entire site should have to meet current residential cleanup standards. (The area outside the 4 acres is also contaminated at lower levels than the TSA, according to DEQ.) 2.What is the safest, most efficient way to route traffic from this area to downtown, I-90, and points west? The NXNE concept plan would require 680 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed development. With the only egress being L Street, that would be a significant increase in the load on that street—much of it industrial—and potentially into the NE residential neighborhood. The design concept tries to solve the traffic problem with a new connector between Rouse and L Street, immediately south of the RR crossing. While this would theoretically mean traffic would skirt the residential neighborhood, this solution appears to create more problems than it would solve: ●As stated above, this is not in the 2017 Transportation Master Plan, which designates it as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway that has already been approved. ●The new “Front Street” would force a sharp turn for southbound traffic immediately after crossing the main tracks, and another relatively sharp turn over a bridge onto Birch St (a very short street with a light at Rouse). Is this practical for 18 wheelers and other industrial vehicles? ●The RR grade crossing is a public safety problem for this area. This crossing as it currently operates will not handle a major increase in traffic. The Phase 1 NXNE concept plan states the required parking at 680 spaces, which presumably would be coming and going from the site on a daily basis. How much traffic would be backed up on either side of the tracks when a mile-long train passes, which happens multiple times each day? This issue has been ignored far too long. There is a federal 100-year plan to eliminate all grade crossings, and 40 states have been identified to receive federal help for grade separation projects. In addition, MDT published a 2016 report on feasible projects in the state, identifying underpass solutions for both Rouse and Griffin, complete with preliminary studies. With this new development factor, now is a prime opportunity to tackle this improvement, especially given that there are multiple funding mechanisms for accomplishing this safety goal. 3.What is the safest egress route should development proceed in this area? What would be the secondary emergency egress? A secondary egress route does not seem to be defined in the Phase 1 NXNE concept, but we know the area is entrapped by the freeway and RR. How will occupants escape should L Street become blocked? How would emergency services access the area? 4.Can creation of a URD generate the funds that will be required to complete the enormous infrastructure needs in this area, including—ideally—cleanup of the contamination at this site? We understand that in required meetings between the City and taxing jurisdictions affected by the creation of a URD (Gallatin County, Bozeman School District), concerns have been expressed about the effect on tax revenue during the lifespan of the URD. Revolving loans can continue well past the 15- or 25-year lifespan. The decision to create a URD for this area is a decision to divert tax dollars from the general fund for an extended period of time. Will development in this area require more funding mechanisms than a TIF can solve? Will there be a limit to how much money a potential developer can borrow against the TIF funding? We strongly feel that transparency and public discussion about all projected costs for infrastructure—as well as all of the financing mechanisms that could be applied—can and should be held concurrently with the discussion about creating this URD. In Conclusion We recognize that development of some sort is likely to happen some time in the future at the Idaho Pole site and surrounding area. We want to work with the City, the City-County Board of Health, and any developer(s) to ensure that community needs of safety and accessibility are met and that what is developed will be well-woven into the Northeast neighborhood and the Bozeman community as a whole. In our opinion, and it seems to be shared by the City-County Board of Health, this site needs to be cleaned up to residential standards before redevelopment can occur—especially if residential use is proposed, which it is in the current NXNE concept plan. Before a URD is approved for this area, we request that the City make public all of the projected infrastructure costs that are a high priority for public safety in this area, addressing each of the 4 issues listed above. We also request that all available funding mechanisms be clearly explained and justified to the public before an URD is approved. Very sincerely, Chandler Dayton Amy Kelley Hoitsma North by Northeast 03 / 19 / 20 MASTERPLAN PHASE 1 Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 Site Plan – OVERALL SURFACE PARKING SURFACE PARKING PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PARKING STRUCTURE ACTIVITY PLAZA RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE 9 0 Commercial Industrial 70,000sf Retail / Office 50,000sf Restaurant / F&B 30,000sf Total Commercial 150,000sf Parking Required 600 Residential Apartments 72,000sf (on 2 levels) Parking Required 80 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 680 Required TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED Structured Parking 660 (Grade + 2 levels @ 220 spaces / level) Surface Parking 183 843 PROVIDED CEDAR STREET L STREETWhere we started: A strong positioning strategy that explores opportunity and defines a vision. Our site has four distinctive points of view: Our Industrial Heritage Our Majestic Mountains Our Emerging Urban Neighborhood Our Future A dynamic new mixed-use industrial development that represents the ideals of today and the Bozeman of tomorrow: A symbol of smart sustainability and adaptive re-use. Ideas that explore evolving Bozeman lifestyles. Places to live, work and play – a sense of community within a community. Concepts that introduce new urban planning and land use. Ideas that create powerful connections through mobility, adjacency, and good old geometry. Catalyst for positive change to adjoining neighborhoods. The creation of a new district – a destination. A vision with room to expand. A place with expansive Montana views. SCALE 1:100 Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 Site Plan – LEVEL 1 INTERSTATE 9 0 CEDAR STREET L STREETPHASE 2 PHASE 3 CEDAR STREET Big first thoughts/ opportunities Use references to industrial heritage to inform parts of our aesthetic to create context. Do not use the above as “theming”. Keep it real. Use powerful linear “vectors” to create connections and organize the plan. Extend those lines to connect to destinations surrounding the site. Artfully zone the property’s uses. Determine the amount of retail and type and placement that is sustainable. Mobility benefits this mixed-use property. Examine dayparts. Bridge to “the other side of the tracks”. We can be a catalyst for that neighborhood’s future. Consider what parts stay stable forever, what can change. Places for public art, performance, and events. Hint: a food truck is all three. Connect to adjacent park, create a bike path. Create a transit hub near parking, trains, and service retail. SCALE 1:100 INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL PARKING STRUCTURE Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 Site Plan – LEVEL 2 INTERSTATE 9 0 CEDAR STREET L STREETPHASE 2 PHASE 3 CEDAR STREET Today, we look at a master plan diagram for the first phase of a development we’ve discussed with Bozeman’s city planners and engineers, and explored in concept as a developer/designer team. This effort illustrates: 1. Diagrams that illustrate a working layout, conceptual form, arrangement and general massing of buildings, adjacencies, and uses that begin to articulate a Phase One Program based on current M-2 Industrial zoning. 2. A hard look at access, circulation and parking that functions for all site uses. 3. A plan that allows us to discuss and draw early design concepts informed by a brand experience, place-making and merchandising/ leasing POV. 4. A design direction that meets the initial numbers and codes. 5. In addition, we are looking at future phases and complimentary merchandising mixes/ uses/ opportunities that can inform the overall design strategy and process. Work in progress: Masterplanning, strategy and visioning SCALE 1:100 INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL (2 FLOORS OF APARTMENTS) PARKING STRUCTURE The select M-2 use categories below are principal, conditional, special & accessory use types. Reference Bozeman Municipal code for specifics. INDUSTRIAL AND WHOLESALE Manufacturing, artisan / light/ moderate, Outside storage, Warehousing / Residential storage GENERAL SALES Restaurants, Retail, up to 40,000sf, Heavy retail with outdoor storage PERSONAL AND GENERAL SERVICES Offices, Medical and dental offices, clinics and centers, Health and exercise establishment, General service establishment, Personal and convenience services, Hotel or Motel PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, GOVERNMENTAL AND REGIONAL Business, trade, technical or vocational school RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND ENTERTAINMENT Amusement and recreational facilities, Casinos, Community centers ACCESSORY AND/OR OTHER USES Agricultural uses, Home-based businesses, Other buildings and structures GENERAL RESIDENTIAL Apartments Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 3D Site Plan – VIEW 1 INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL PARKING STRUCTURE CONTAMINATED SOIL AREA NON BUILDABLE CED A R S T R E E T SURFACE PARKING SURFACE PARKING Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 3D Site Plan – VIEW 2 INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL PARKING STRUCTURE CONTAMINATED SOIL AREA NON BUILDABLE CEDAR S T R E E T L S T R E E T SURFACE PARKING SURFACE PARKING Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 3D Site Plan – VIEW 3 INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL PARKING STRUCTURE CONTAMINATED SOIL AREA NON BUILDABLE CE D A R S T R E E T SURFACE PARKING SURFACE PARKING Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 Context Images & Site Section “wellness district ” ůŝĨĞƐƚǇůĞĚƌŝǀĞŶƌĞƚĂŝů͕ĨΘď͕ĞǀĞŶƚĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ planning concepts ͞ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůĂĚĂƉƟǀĞƌĞƵƐĞ͟ ƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞǀĞƌŶĂĐƵůĂƌŽĨŝŶĚƵƐƚƌǇ͕ƐŚŝƉƉŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽďƵŝůĚŝĚĞŶƟƚǇ building typologies ͞ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůĂĚĂƉƟǀĞƌĞƵƐĞ͟ ƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞǀĞƌŶĂĐƵůĂƌŽĨŝŶĚƵƐƚƌǇ͕ƐŚŝƉƉŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽďƵŝůĚŝĚĞŶƟƚǇ building typologies “historic materiality” using the materials from adjacent historic buildings to create visual links building typologies “historic materiality” m adjacent historic buildings to create visual links building typologies building typologies building typologies using the materials from adjacent historic buildings to create visual links building typologies ͞ĐƌĞĂƟŶŐĂŶŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƟǀĞĞĚŐĞ͟ ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĞĚŐĞĚĞĮŶĞĚ͕ŐŝǀĞŶŝĚĞŶƟƚǇĂŶĚĂĐƟǀĂƚĞĚ building typologies ͞ůŝǀŝŶŐĐƵůƚƵƌĞ͟ integrated spaces for gathering and performance iXFMMOFTTEJTUSJDUw MJGFTUZMFESJWFOSFUBJM GC FWFOUBOEIFBMUI planning concepts plannin plann MJGFTUZMFESJWFOSFUBJM GC FWFOUBOEI planning concepts building integrated spaces for gathering Wellness district. Lifestyle driven retail, f&b, event and health. Living culture. Integrated spaces for gathering and performance. Creating an interactive edge. District edge defined, given identity and activated. Industrial adaptive reuse. Using the vernacular of industry, shipping and sustainability to build identity. Historic materiality. Using the materials from adjacent historic buildings to create visual links. “buy local ” warehouse style halls that support local small business and local suppliers planning concepts Buy local. Warehouse style halls that support local small business and local suppliers. Masterplan – Phase 1 North by Northeast Site 03 / 19 / 2020 Context Images rd for a meandering street where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motor vehicles planning concepts “woonerf” the Dutch word for a meandering street where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motor vehicles planning concepts planning concepts “woonerf” h word for a meandering street where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motor vehicles planning concepts Woonerf. The Dutch word for a meandering street where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motor vehicles. Makers district. A demarcated urban area that creates a crucial mass of culture with art galleries, dance venues, theater and studios. Not just a parking garage. Parking garage creating as large scale public artwork or an extension of green space with green roof, green screen ad community park space. Food truck park. Open space with pavilion and rotating mix of mobile vendors. Mews. Contemporary version of activated alley. planning concepts ĐŽŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨĂĐƟ planning conc planning concepts “mews” ĐŽŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨĂĐƟǀĂƚĞĚĂůůĞǇ planning concepts “food truck park ” ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞǁŝƚŚƉĂǀŝůŝŽŶĂŶĚƌŽƚĂƟŶŐŵŝǆŽĨŵŽďŝůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ planning concepts ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞǁŝƚŚƉĂǀ ŽƉ “makers district” ĂĚĞŵĂƌĐĂƚĞĚƵƌďĂŶĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂĐƌƵƟĐĂůŵĂƐƐŽĨĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁŝƚŚĂƌƚŐĂůůĞƌŝĞƐ͕ĚĂŶĐĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ͕ƚŚĞĂƚĞƌĂŶĚƐƚƵĚŝŽƐ planning concepts “makers district” ďĂŶĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂĐƌƵƟĐĂůŵĂƐƐŽĨĐƵůƚƵƌĞǁŝƚŚĂƌƚŐĂůůĞƌŝĞƐ͕ĚĂŶĐĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ͕ƚŚĞĂƚĞƌĂŶĚƐƚƵĚŝŽƐ planning concepts “parking garage as art” ŵĂƐƐŽĨŐĂƌĂŐĞĐƌĞĂƟŶŐĂƐůĂƌŐĞƐĐĂůĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚŽƐĞĂƐŽŶƐ planning concepts “parking garage as art” ŵĂƐƐŽĨŐĂƌĂŐĞĐƌĞĂƟŶŐĂƐůĂƌŐĞƐĐĂůĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚŽƐĞĂƐŽŶƐ “parking garage as art” ŵĂƐƐŽĨŐĂƌĂŐĞĐƌĞĂƟŶŐĂƐůĂƌŐĞƐĐĂůĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚŽƐĞĂƐŽŶƐ “parking garage as park” ƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƚŽĂŶĞǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶŽĨŐƌĞĞŶƐƉĂĐĞǁŝƚŚŐƌĞĞŶƌŽŽĨ͕ŐƌĞĞŶƐĐƌĞĞŶĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƉĂƌŬƐƉĂĐĞ planning concepts GAL/ACRE/DAY ~PHASE 1 ACREAGE GAL/DAY GPM M-2 (Phase 1) 960 11.64 11174.40 7.76 Based on DSSP Table V-1 1746.00 1.21 Assumed 150 gpd/ac Based on DSSP V.B.6. Population ~135 37.77 GAL/ACRE/DAY ~PHASE 2 ACREAGE GAL/DAY GPM M-2 (Phase 1) 960 11.64 11174.4 7.76 Based on DSSP Table V-1 B-2 (Phase 2) 2000 12.43 24860.00 17.26 Based on DSSP Table V-1 3610.50 2.51 Assumed 150 gpd/ac Based on DSSP V.B.6. Population ~275 112.60 GAL/ACRE/DAY ~PHASE 3 ACREAGE GAL/DAY GPM M-2 (Phase 1) 960 11.64 11174.40 7.76 Based on DSSP Table V-1 B-2 (Phase 2) 2000 12.43 24860.00 17.26 Based on DSSP Table V-1 B-2 (Phase 3) 2000 8.69 17380.00 12.07 Based on DSSP Table V-1 4914.00 3.41 Assumed 150 gpd/ac Based on DSSP V.B.6. Population ~375 163.64 Concept Level Sewer Demand Calculations NxNE Potential Development *GPM based on GAL/DAY evenly distributed thoughout 24 hour period *GPM based on GAL/DAY evenly distributed thoughout 24 hour period *GPM based on GAL/DAY evenly distributed thoughout 24 hour period PHASE 1 SANITARY SEWER DEMAND ESTIMATES PHASE 1 & 2 SANITARY SEWER DEMAND ESTIMATES PHASE 1, 2, & 3 SANITARY SEWER DEMAND ESTIMATES Infiltration and Inflow Total=(Sewer Demand + I&I)*Peaking Factor Peaking Factor 4.21 Infiltration and Inflow Peaking Factor 4.09 Total=(Sewer Demand + I&I)*Peaking Factor Infiltration and Inflow Peaking Factor Total=(Sewer Demand + I&I)*Peaking Factor 4.04 0 40 SCALE: 1" = 40' 802040 PRELIMINARY - FOR REVIEWNORTH NOTE: -EXISTING UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS & PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. SERVICE LINES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, SEWER, TELEPHONE & TELEVISION) MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS. -ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 6TH EDITION, APRIL, 2010, AND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, DATED MARCH 31, 2011, WITH ADDENDUM. -UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNIQUES AS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF WORK BEING PERFORMED.FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTION----FRONT STREET OPTION 1CEDAR STREET DEVELOPMENTNORTH BY NORTHEASTBOZEMAN, MTC5.2 -20007_FRONT STREET OP1_PROD.DWGCS----------------20007UNDERGROUND POWER SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN TELEPHONE WATER CONTOUR OVERHEAD POWER CURB AND GUTTER EDGE OF ASPHALT EDGE OF GRAVEL EXISTING PROPOSED POWER POLE WATER VALVE LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TRAIL RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY TAKE 0 40 SCALE: 1" = 40' 802040 PRELIMINARY - FOR REVIEWNORTH NOTE: -EXISTING UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS & PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. SERVICE LINES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, SEWER, TELEPHONE & TELEVISION) MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS. -ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 6TH EDITION, APRIL, 2010, AND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, DATED MARCH 31, 2011, WITH ADDENDUM. -UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNIQUES AS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF WORK BEING PERFORMED.FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTION----FRONT STREET OPTION 2CEDAR STREET DEVELOPMENTNORTH BY NORTHEASTBOZEMAN, MTC5.3 -20007_FRONT STREET OP2_PROD.DWGCS----------------20007UNDERGROUND POWER SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN TELEPHONE WATER CONTOUR OVERHEAD POWER CURB AND GUTTER EDGE OF ASPHALT EDGE OF GRAVEL EXISTING PROPOSED POWER POLE WATER VALVE LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TRAIL RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY TAKE 0 40 SCALE: 1" = 40' 802040 PRELIMINARY - FOR REVIEWNORTH NOTE: -EXISTING UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS & PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. SERVICE LINES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, SEWER, TELEPHONE & TELEVISION) MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS. -ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 6TH EDITION, APRIL, 2010, AND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, DATED MARCH 31, 2011, WITH ADDENDUM. -UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNIQUES AS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF WORK BEING PERFORMED.FILE:PROJECT NO:CAD:QUALITY ASSURANCE:DRAWING HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTION----FRONT STREET OPTION 3CEDAR STREET DEVELOPMENTNORTH BY NORTHEASTBOZEMAN, MTC5.4 -20007_FRONT STREET OP3_PROD.DWGCS----------------20007UNDERGROUND POWER SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN TELEPHONE WATER CONTOUR OVERHEAD POWER CURB AND GUTTER EDGE OF ASPHALT EDGE OF GRAVEL EXISTING PROPOSED POWER POLE WATER VALVE LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TRAIL RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY TAKE 0100SCALE: 1" = 100'20050100PRELIMINARY - FOR REVIEWNORTHNOTE:-EXISTING UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS & PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER. THEENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. SERVICE LINES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, SEWER, TELEPHONE & TELEVISION) MAY NOT BESTRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS.-ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 6TH EDITION, APRIL, 2010, AND THE CITY OFBOZEMAN STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, DATED MARCH 31, 2011, WITH ADDENDUM.-UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED INTHE STATE WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNIQUES ASARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF WORK BEING PERFORMED.FILE: PROJECT NO: CAD: QUALITY ASSURANCE: DRAWING HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION ---- WATER UTILITY PLAN CEDAR STREET DEVELOPMENT NORTH BY NORTHEAST BOZEMAN, MTC7.1- 20007_WATER_UTIL_PROD.DWG CS -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 20007 UNDERGROUND POWERSANITARY SEWERSTORM DRAINTELEPHONEWATEROVERHEAD POWERCURB AND GUTTEREDGE OF ASPHALTEDGE OF GRAVELEXISTINGPROPOSEDPOWER POLEWATER VALVELEGENDSANITARY SEWER MANHOLETRAILRAILWAY