HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-25 Public Comment - S. Boyd - Comments for 24493, the GuthrieFrom:Scott and Frances Boyd To:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode Cc:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments for 24493, the Guthrie Date:Tuesday, December 31, 2024 8:29:37 PM Attachments:Reclaim and deny Guthrie 24493.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am attaching my comments requesting a denial of application 24493, the Guthrie. Best regards, Scott Boyd Bozeman To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to request that project 24493, aka the Guthrie, be denied as submitted. There are several issues with the new application beyond those pertaining to safety, traffic that previous commentors made on HomeBase’s previous version, all of which remain valid objections. 1) The application fails to meet the required open space requirements. Exhibit Application Drawings > 004 – A0.12 – Open Space Calculations – Interior Amenities shows that the approximate 15’ x 15’ area leading to the main entrance is used in meeting the project’s open space requirement. However, there are stairs and handrails approximately 10 feet from the main entrance that preclude usage of this area per BMC 38.520.060.B.2.g which states “stairways and service elements located within or on the edge of shared open space must not be included in the open space calculations.” Further, their elimination reduces the dimension of that area to less than 15 feet, violating BMC 38.520.060.B.2.c which states “shared open space must feature no dimension less than 15 feet in order to provide functional leisure or recreational activity.” Additionally, the plan proposes using a three- bicycle parking area on the northeast corner of the property and a fourteen-bicycle parking area on the south side towards its required open space requirements. These areas do not meet BMC 38.520.060.B.2.d which states “shared open space must feature paths or walkable lawns, landscaping, seating, lighting, and play structures, sports courts, or other pedestrian amenities to make the area more functional and enjoyable for a range of users.” These bike racks are service elements and must not be included per BMC 38.520.060.B.2.g. Though ‘service elements’ is not a defined term in BMC nor in the latest edition of "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" by Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, we can take our cues from BMC 38.520.060.B.2.d which specifically mentions “pedestrian amenities” and though it doesn’t apply to this application, from BMC 38.520.060.D which focuses exclusively on “pedestrian-oriented opens space,” while excluding “outdoor storage” per BMC 38.520.060.D.3.e. Bike racks are for storing and parking bicycles, and just like auto parking lots, they should not count towards open space requirements. Additionally, in the previous application, Exhibit 23354 > First Round > Documents > 02 CONR Comments and Responses > Comment 42, staff states ”the applicant must demonstrate the programming and design of the proposed open space areas used to meet the minimum open space area meet the requirements of BMC 38.520.060. Staff is skeptical that shared laundry and bike storage areas meet the requirements of paragraph 4 which requires indoor spaces to be specifically designed to serve interior recreational functions.” However, eliminating the 15’x15’ area in front of the main entrance alone causes the application to fail to meet open space requirements since the application only had an excess of 48 square feet, according to the applicant’s own calculations. 2) The application fails to meet required public safety measures. First, according to Exhibit 24493 Application Drawings > 015 – C1.1 – Civil Site Plan, the required heated tip pad is entirely within the confines of the property line as well as inside the public sidewalk. The 50-foot ‘trash loading path’ on the site plan illustrates that the garbage trucks and recycling trucks will approach the tip pad northbound at an acute 45-degree angle while crossing the southbound lane of travel and block the sidewalk, ingress and egress to the property, and a portion of the right-of-way for the duration of the collection process. After collecting the solid waste and recycling, the trucks will then be required to back out onto the street and cross the southbound lane of traffic headed in the opposite direction, before continuing in their intended direction of travel. This is contrary to the Solid Waste comment in the document DEM SP – Review Comments (NB this was not submitted with the noticed application as it was in the previous instance but was obtained through an open records request and is attached to this comment letter). Solid Waste, Cycle 1 Markup: SLD Waste, 034 - A1.01 - SITE PLAN.pdf 1. must be written into covenants that it is managements responsibility to move trash containers to the tip sight on collection day. 2.tip pad must be heated. 3. must have 50 foot straight approach to the tip pad. no parking allowed within the straight approach. 4. will need a turn around for refuse truck we cannot back out onto street. Therefore, the proposed plan endangers the public as well as the city’s solid waste truck drivers and fails to meet the Solid Waste Department’s requirements for a turnaround. Secondly, it remains the case that there remains no turnaround for vehicles within the parking lot. The lack of a turnaround will require drivers who find no available parking places after reaching the terminus of the lot to navigate the entire distance of the parking lot in reverse as well as exit the lot by backing out on the street. Imagine the frustration that a visitor or resident who requires accessible parking will experience when forced to reverse the length of the parking lot while navigating a narrow corridor with oncoming traffic as well as pedestrians. This endangers the public as well as users of a parking lot designed and built with more demand than there are spaces supplied. Thirdly, according to Exhibit 24493 Application Drawings > 034 – A1.01 –Site Plan there are two 150-foot fire hose pulls from the street that supposedly demonstrate that the fire department will be able to adequately provide firefighting capabilities to the interior of the project that isn’t accessible from the street. In the case of an emergency this would require that no vehicle be parked in the westernmost parking space on Villard since the illustration shows the hose passing directly through that space. Though the illustration shows that the hose pulls meet on an absolute basis from north to south, they do not meet when the northern hose pull proceeds around the exterior of the building, traversing west to east along the southern wall. Otherwise, units A113, A115, and A117 will not be afforded coverage except from the parking lot. Public safety is one area that should not be compromised, particularly when considering a brand-new building. Additionally, it should be noted that the existing structure does have complete access to all sides and is thoroughly feasible for a new structure. 3) Several exhibits contain misleading and inaccurate information, casting doubt upon the veracity of the documentation that the city must rely upon in judging the application. In Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 31 Early Termination of Two-Year Stay, HomeBase asserts that they had two meetings with neighborhood groups and their representatives. This has been refuted publicly by City Manager Chuck Wynn as the separate meetings were arranged with two residents in their personal individual capacities at Chuck Wynn’s urging. Prior to agreeing to meet each resident obtained assurances that the meetings were specifically not intended to meet this section of code which were again relayed at the beginning of the meetings, and yet HomeBase asserts the opposite. In the same document they raise health and safety concerns about the condition of the building. Ironically it is their own actions that have left the building in a visibly unsafe condition. Up until the time that HomeBase purchased the property it was operating as a highly regulated and inspected rehabilitation center and nursing home. Presumably had it been purchased by another nursing home it would still be in operation today. They have not “continue(d) to secure the building” but have knowingly left it in a state of disrepair and inviting access to unsheltered folks, with plywood that is covering missing windows simply propped against the opening rather than securely attached. These conditions have existed for over six months! One wonders if the intent of the lack of attention to security and permitting exposure to the elements is to induce “demolition through neglect.” Furthermore, as it was explained to the neighbors, the asbestos abatement was required in both the adaptive reuse scenario as well as in the demolition/rebuild scenario and so was allowed to proceed in the interim, prior to the City’s adjudication of the application. It is now being presented in such a way that it was done in anticipation of a demolition, which is now a foregone conclusion and urgent matter, apparently in concurrence with all of the insurance carriers. As an aside, the debris pile from the asbestos abatement as seen in Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 19 Historic Property Record on page 5 from April 1, 2024, remains to this day and is visible from the street. It is undoubtedly a nuisance per Sec. 16.02.050 and Sec. 18.03.080, and it along with the debris pile nearest to 5th Street detract from the neighborhood. Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 06 Project and DEM Narrative opens with a narrative presenting building and economic constraints that prevent adaptive reuse, including “safety and environmental challenges” and “necessary environmental remediation.” Considering that this is a new application for development and that the remediation has already been completed prior to the application’s submission and the building is no longer a threat to public health or safety, how are these “constraints” germane to the application, other than to paint an inflammatory picture of a supposedly dangerous building that should be demolished? In the Landscape Context section of the exhibit HomeBase refers to the four-plex immediately to the south as an “apartment building,” implying that similar structures to the Guthrie already exist in the neighborhood. That is misleading. Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 27 The Guthrie Renovation vs New Build Comparison contains inconsistencies and omissions which prevent a valid determination of “no viable economic life.” Page 4 shows a Landscaping/Hardscaping allowance of $300,000, a Site Utilities and New Stormwater System Allowance of $150,000, and a Winter Conditions Allowance of $70,000 for the renovation estimate. Conversely, on page 6 the new two-story development estimate budgets only $105,000 for a Landscaping/Hardscaping allowance, nothing at all for a Site Utilities and New Stormwater System Allowance, and $37,500 for a Winter Conditions Allowance. How is it that the landscaping and hardscaping cost three times more for the existing building than for a new project of the same size and footprint? Why does the new project not require any budget for site utilities and a new stormwater system? How would a brand-new building, with a new foundation and framing require a winter conditions allowance three times smaller than one for an existing building in a contained envelope? The proverbial thumb is placed on the scale with the new development receiving income streams that the renovated pro forma does not. The new construction contains rental income from furnishings, coin op income, internet and service fees, and parking income while the renovation pro forma excludes them. The renovation plans show two new laundry rooms and a line-item expense for telecom but no corresponding revenue. Is the intention to paint a skewed picture toward a desired outcome by decreasing revenue while increasing expenses in pro forma models? Similarly, the renovation budget on page 5 outlines the scope of work to include a new fire protection system and associated standpipes, new boilers, and a CMU elevator shaft as well as a new elevator. However, Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 16 Renovation Study in the IEBC code review on page 2 states that the project complies with the existing automatic sprinkler system and standpipes and does not assert that IEBC requires replacement of the boilers. Is this replacement a deferred maintenance issue or code-driven? As to the CMU elevator shaft and new elevator, first note that new build estimate on page 6 omits a new elevator altogether. Is an elevator even required for a two-level, one-story building? If it is why isn’t it reflected in the new two-story construction estimate? If it isn’t then it shouldn’t be included as a cost in the renovation estimate. IBC 1104.4 Multistory Buildings and Facilities At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible story and mezzanine in multilevel buildings and facilities. Exceptions: 1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2) and are located above and below accessible levels. This exception shall not apply to: 1. Multiple tenant facilities of Group M occupancies containing five or more tenant spaces used for the sales or rental of goods and where at least one such tenant space is located on a floor level above or below the accessible levels; 2. Stories or mezzanines containing offices of health care providers (Group B or I); 3. Passenger transportation facilities and airports (Group A-3 or B); or 4. Government buildings. 2. Stories or mezzanines that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1108 or 1109 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level. IBC 1108.4 Accessible Route At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building or facility entrances with the primary entrance of each Accessible unit, Type A unit and Type B unit within the building or facility and with those exterior and interior spaces and facilities that serve the units. Exceptions: 1. If due to circumstances outside the control of the owner, either the slope of the finished ground level between accessible facilities and buildings exceeds one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1:12), or where physical barriers or legal restrictions prevent the installation of an accessible route, a vehicular route with parking that complies with Section 1106 at each public or common use facility or building is permitted in place of the accessible route. 2. In Group I-3 facilities, an accessible route is not required to connect stories or mezzanines where Accessible units, all common use areas serving Accessible units and all public use areas are on an accessible route. 3. In Group R-2 facilities with Type A units complying with Section 1108.6.2.2.1, an accessible route is not required to connect stories or mezzanines where Type A units, all common use areas serving Type A units and all public use areas are on an accessible route. 4. In other than Group R-2 dormitory housing provided by places of education, in Group R- 2 facilities with Accessible units complying with Section 1108.6.2.3.1, an accessible route is not required to connect stories or mezzanines where Accessible units, all common use areas serving Accessible units and all public use areas are on an accessible route. 5. In Group R-1, an accessible route is not required to connect stories or mezzanines within individual units, provided the accessible level meets the provisions for Accessible units and sleeping accommodations for two persons minimum and a toilet facility are provided on that level. 6. In congregate residences in Groups R-3 and R-4, an accessible route is not required to connect stories or mezzanines where Accessible units or Type B units, all common use areas serving Accessible units and Type B units and all public use areas serving Accessible units and Type B units are on an accessible route. 7. An accessible route between stories is not required where Type B units are exempted by Section 1108.7. 4) Crucially, the application fails to meet the requirements of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the NCOD. The term ‘story’ is not a defined term within the BMC. Looking to the latest edition of "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" by Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, we find it defined as: That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it, and including basements if the basement ceiling is greater than five feet above the average adjoining grade. Comment: While “story” is often used to limit height and size of buildings, a much more effective tool is “building height” in feet, as well as FAR (floor area ratio) for nonresidential buildings and “maximum density” (dwelling units per acre) for multifamily residences. In those cases where an applicant decides to expand a basement or cellar to create additional usable space, that expansion should not be counted as a story, providing that there are no changes to the exterior of the building, the original use remains the same, and FAR or maximum density limits are not violated. On page 5 of Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 32 Certificate of Appropriateness, HomeBase states in the response to Chapter 3: Guidelines for Residential Character areas: (all direct responses from HomeBase’s application are highlighted in blue for clarity) The subject property is in a transitional location that includes both residential and commercial properties. There is a single-family home to the north, a 3-story church to the east, a 3 story multi-family building to the south, and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will eventually become 4-5 stories in height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District. First, they are misclassifying the fourplex and church as three-story buildings when by definition they are two and one story respectively. We would grant that they are pedantically two and a half and one and a half stories tall. They have also omitted that there is another single-family log home immediately to the east of the proposed building and directly across the street. Next, they imagine a 4-5 story tall building in place of the existing Sapphire, the one- story motel to the west in order to create their narrative that they’ll exist in a transition zone of taller buildings. The owners of the motel are mildly surprised and bemused by this new development as they’ve relayed that they have no plans to redevelop. Further, the Sapphire made use of funds from the creation of the Midtown Urban Renewal District and refurbished their award-winning property just a few years ago and the owners anticipate owning the motel for generations. In the Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 06 Project and DEM Narrative, HomeBase says of the Guthrie, “the 4 story building is a gradual and predictable increase in density as the immediate neighbors are 3 stories.” We’ll analyze the actual heights in the next section but want to point out that the pattern of using an inaccurate and misleading narrative persists throughout the application. From page 6 of Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 32 Certificate of Appropriateness, we see: 3B. Building Mass and Scale: The mass and scale of a building is also an important design issue in a residential character area. The traditional scale of single household houses dominates the neighborhood, and this similarity of scale also enhances the pedestrian-friendly character of many streets. Similarities in scale among prominent building features, such as porches and fences, are also important. In many cases, earlier buildings were smaller than current tastes support; nonetheless, a new building should, to the greatest extent possible, maintain this established scale. While new buildings and additions are anticipated that may be larger than many of the earlier structures, this new construction should not be so dramatically greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised (emphasis added). This location is transitional in nature with a variety of uses and scale of buildings surrounding the property, including a single-family home to the north, a 3-story church to the east, a 3 story multi-family building to the south, and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will eventually become 4-5 stories in height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District. 1. Guideline 1: Construct a new building to be similar in mass and scale to those single household residences seen traditionally. a. The proposed building is similar in mass and scale to the surrounding structures including a 3-story church to the east and a 3-story multifamily building to the south. We’ve shown that this is inaccurate by definition. However, once we quantifiably include the actual heights and calculate the true volumes of the buildings, we see that the new Guthrie is massively larger than the two surrounding structures and in fact will become the largest structure in the area. The neighboring fourplex to the south, at 21 feet tall at its highest while ranging between 10 and 17 feet on the other structures, has a volume of approximately 68,000 cubic feet resulting from all three structures on its lot. The church, at approximately 30 feet tall at the ridgeline and with a footprint of approximately 3700 SF has a volume of approximately 87,000 cubic feet. Finally, please note that HomeBase claims the Guthrie is only 47 feet tall, but that is only to the rooftop. Including the 3’ 11.5” parapet the actual roofline height of the building is more accurately 49’ 11.5”, which for all practical purposes we can call 50 feet. With its 13,750 SF footprint we calculate a volume of 687,500 cubic feet. Below is a table for easier reading. Building Height Building Footprint Building Volume Lot Size Footprint Factor (Volume/Lot Size) Guthrie Size Larger Fourplex varies (10-21') ~3900 SF ~68,000 CF ~14,000 SF 3.68 10x Church varies (17-30') ~3700 SF ~87,000 CF ~36,000 SF 9.7 7.9x Guthrie 50’ 13,750 SF 687,500 CF 36,752 SF 2.67 b. The proposed building has a smaller footprint with a lot coverage of 13,750 sf compared to the existing building of almost 18,000 sf. This allows for increased landscaping and open space around the site. The existing building has a footprint of 15,530 SF per Exhibit 24493 Application Documents > 27 The Guthrie Renovation vs New Build Comparison. This is just another misleading inaccuracy. While the new building indeed would be smaller than the existing, it still results in a more intensive impact and much higher density than any surrounding structure. The Guthrie will occupy 37% of its lot while the fourplex uses only 28% and the church uses 10%. It is a more intensive development than the two structures HomeBase continually references. 2. Guideline 2: On larger structures, step down a building’s height toward the street, neighboring structures and the rear of the lot. a. This guideline is not feasible due to design and character implications. A step down within the proposed building footprint would create a non-traditional building form and roof shape contradicting Guideline F in Chapter 2 of the NCOD preferring simple rectangular solids over exotic forms. Instead of a step down, this application incorporates an overall reduction in height for the building as a whole from the previous application. Should this response be interpreted to mean “we just don’t want to do this?” The previous application has been abandoned and comparisons to it are not germane to this application. 4. Guideline 4: The front wall of a new structure should not exceed two stories in height. a. This guideline is not applicable considering the immediate context of a 3-story church to the east, a 3-story multifamily building to the south, and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will eventually become 4-5 stories in height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District. Again, we have a response with misleading numbers and imaginary buildings justifying why the guidelines will not be met. Maybe if HomeBase repeats it enough we’ll all start to believe it? If they want to use the immediate context of the heights of the surrounding buildings as a starting point for the height of their new structure, then they might be able to get this development accepted and approved. 5. Guideline 5: A façade should appear similar in dimension to those seen traditionally in the neighborhood. a. As mentioned earlier the existing structure has a building footprint of 18,000 sf and the property is surrounded by a mix of building uses and forms including a 3-story church to the east, a 3-story multifamily building to the south, and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will eventually become 4-5 stories in height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District. The proposed building has a smaller footprint than the existing at 13,750 sf, resulting in less linear street frontage than existing. The Guthrie’s façade is roughly 6 times larger than the next largest facade seen in the neighborhood, which is that of the church. The church has a façade of approximately 2,500 SF along its street frontage width and breadth while the Guthrie’s façade is approximately 15,000 SF along its street frontage width and breadth. It is difficult to tell from the Guthrie’s site plans, but it appears that the linear street frontage is very nearly the same as the existing buildings dimensions of 124 feet by 177 feet. If it is indeed smaller it is only negligibly so. C. Roof Form: In most neighborhoods, a similarity of roof form also contributes to a sense of visual continuity. In order to maintain this sense of visual continuity, a new building should have basic roof form that is similar to those seen traditionally. 1. Guideline 1: Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. a. The existing building on the site is rectangular with a flat roof. This building also proposes a rectangular shape with a flat roof which is appropriate considering its location on the edge and transition to the Midtown Urban Renewal District. Similarly, the buildings to the south and east of the property have flat roofs. Only one building to the south, the fourplex, has a flat roof. The other two structures on that lot have sloped roofs. There is no building to the east of the property that has a flat roof. With that inaccuracy pointed out, there probably is not an objection to a flat roof at this location as the majority of the existing structure is flat. However, this response illustrates a continued carelessness with the facts. Below are a few renderings in situ that illustrate the massiveness of the building and how out of character its mass and scale actually are when compared to existing homes and structures in the neighborhood. In particular, pay attention to how it dwarfs the “three-story” church. Looking northeast toward Bridgers Looking east on Villard Looking south on 5th Ave In conclusion, the proposed Guthrie building fails on several fronts: it does not meet the mandated open space requirements; it does not meet public safety and welfare requirements; it is consistently inaccurate and misleading which calls into the veracity of the underlying claim that it has no viable economic life; it does not meet a COA as it fails to meet four of the guidelines and is incredibly out of character for, and exceeds the mass and scale of, surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. As an infill project that is replacing an existing historic structure within the NCOD it is imperative that it fit into the neighborhood. As part of this comment letter I would like to incorporate all comments given by Alison Sweeney herewith, as well as the objections I raised pertaining to the previous application. Sincerely, Scott Boyd Bozeman, MT From:Scott and Frances Boyd To:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode Cc:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Comments for 24493, the Guthrie Date:Thursday, January 2, 2025 8:42:14 AM Attachments:24493 The Guthrie 5th and Villard CCOA DEM SP - Review Comments - 12092024_145210 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I realized I neglected to attach the staff comments to HBP obtained through an open records request, which I referenced in my comment letter. Please find them here. Thanks, Scott On Tuesday, December 31, 2024 at 09:28:56 PM CST, Scott and Frances Boyd <sfmclboyd@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I am attaching my comments requesting a denial of application 24493, the Guthrie. Best regards, Scott Boyd Bozeman Project Name: 24493 The Guthrie 5th and Villard CCOA DEM SP Project Description: 24493 The Guthrie 5th and Villard CCOA DEM SP Review Comments List Date: 12/9/2024 Addressing, Cycle 1 Comment: Once all of the requirements and conditions have been satisfied and this is approved, the individual units can be addressed. Community Housing, Cycle 1 Comment: Sec. 38.380.040.A.1.b Include the table in 38.380.020-1 in the Affordable Housing Plan. Sec. 38.380.040A.c Include the number of bedrooms in each proposed affordable home and market-rate homes. Sec. 38.380.040.A.1.e Include the location of affordable lots in the Affordable Housing Plan. Sec. 38.380.040.A.1.g Include a detailed description of requested incentives. Specifically: 38.380.030.3.f. 5) Section 38.530.050 building detail standards. Please elaborate. Sec 38.380.040.2.c Include description of shared amenities in the Affordable Housing Plan. Sec. 38.380.040.E Include the Affordable Housing Plan Application and Agreement in the Affordable Housing Plan. Please contact rmunfrada@bozeman.net Additionally, please note that the Notice of Deed Restrictions and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants must be executed prior to final SP approval. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:26 AM See updated document '09 Affordable Housing Plan' which now includes requested information. Acknowledged that the Notice of Deed Restrictions and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will be executed prior to final Site Plan Approval. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - service caps , 10 Civil Engineering Report.pdf DSSP Section V.A.6.h - Please add, that any curb boxes or valve boxes on the existing lines to be demolished and caped at the main should be removed. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:32 AM This requirement has been added to the demolition notes on Sheet C1.0, and the Engineering Report. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - cut in manhole , 10 Civil Engineering Report.pdf Please include the SS cut in manhole to the infrastructure improvements. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:32 AM This requirement has been added to the concurrent construction requirements on Sheet C1.1, and the Engineering Report. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - fire flow , 10 Civil Engineering Report.pdf DSSP Section V The water distribution system must be designed to meet the maximum day demand plus fire flow and the peak hour demand. Add fire flow. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:33 AM This information has been added to the Engineering Report. Engineering, Cycle 1 Library Comment: BMC 38.410.130. Water Adequacy: The development will need to satisfy the water adequacy code requirement prior to a future site plan approval. If sufficient water rights cant be provided to offsets the development's annual demand then a cash-in-lieu of water rights (CILWR) payment will be required. The City assesses the CILWR fee at a rate of $6,000 per acre-foot. The fee determination will take place during the site plan review, however if there are any questions or if a preliminary review is desired please contact Griffin Nielsen with the Engineering/Utilities Department directly at gnielsen@bozeman.net or (406) 582-2279. The City encourages the use of groundwater wells to supply irrigation demands, which in turn will reduce the CILWR fee. Applicant must obtain a pre-determination from the DNRC demonstrating that a well groundwater well may be permitted under Montanas exempt appropriation or that provide the water right documentation if existing prior to finalization of the CILWR fee determination. Finally, the City would like to make the owner aware of an available CILWR rebate of approximately 20% for residential units if high- efficiency fixtures (toilets, washers, and shower heads) meeting the City Water Conservation Division standards are installed. The rebate would be released at occupancy and requires an agreement defining the terms and amount rebate be finalized and executed prior to final plan approval. If the owner is interested or has any questions please reach out to Griffin Nielsen. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 2:49 PM Final approval and execution of the rebate should be completed with Griffin Nelson. Receipt of the executed agreement, fee determination, and final CILWR payment is conditional of site plan approval. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:49 AM The applicant emailed Griffin Nielsen on 10/9/24 to get a preliminary estimate for CILWR. Also attached to that email was the draft CILWR rebate form that the developer is interested in proceeding with. See updated document "25 CILWR Efficiency Rebate Agreement". The final version will be executed prior to final site plan approval. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.400.060.B.4. Level of Service Standards (LOS)- The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study that identifies that minor approaches to the intersections of North 7th Avenue with West Villard Street and West Beall Street are expected to operate with a LOS of "D". The applicant must complete a signal warrant analysis at these two locations and submit to the review authority for final determination on whether the intersections meet the City criteria for an exception or waiver for intersections with an LOS of less than "C". Also, please include conclusive correspondence with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) concerning Systems Impact along the North 7th Avenue corridor, with specific respect to the subject intersections. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/7/24 3:58 PM An acceptable warrant analysis and conclusive correspondence from MDT has been received and uploaded with this revision cycle. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM See uploaded document "28 The Guthrie Signal Warrant Study" for requested signal warrant analysis. We have been in contact with Kristina Kilta (Bozeman MDT Transportation Engineer) and she has the Signal Warrant Memo to review. A meeting is being scheduled once MDT has had time to review. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: TIS recommendations- The stop sign recommended at the access to the site on North 5th Avenue is not necessary. The stop at commercial accesses is implied. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/7/24 3:55 PM The applicant may install the stop sign in an onsite location outside of the public right of way and it must be maintained privately as part of the site. Stop sign privatization and relocation will be a condition of site plan approval. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM Understand it is not required, however for pedestrian safety we prefer to keep the stop sign per plan. The placement of the stop sign behind the sidewalk also assists with ensuring egressing vehicles do not stage on the sidewalk blocking pedestrian facilities. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: Access Spacing Memorandum - 38.400.090.H.d. Site access design - Please include a detail to the review engineer showing the left turn conflict between the access and existing alley on North 5th Avenue. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM See uploaded document "29 Access Turning Template Figure" which illustrates how left turns out of the Guthrie and out of the Alley maintain clear visions. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: Access Spacing Memorandum - 38.400.090.3.b.1 - drive access and parking stall dimensions - Please acknowledge and address the site plan deviation from standard commercial drive aisle width and parking stall length in this memorandum. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM The dimension on the previous plans was incorrect, and has been corrected. The drive aisle width is 24'. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.270.030.C.1 - Onsite or Adjacent Improvements concurrent construction criteria - The applicant must submit all outstanding concurrent construciton applicaiton deliverables, prior to concurrent construction approval and issuance of a building permit, including the following; 1. Approved infrastructure set - submitted and reviewed per the City of Bozeman Infrastructure Review Process 2. Written approval from the fire marshal 3. Irrevocable offer of dedication - see template uploaded to the City Documents file 4. Concurrent Construction Phasing Plan. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:38 AM Additional concurrent construction narration has been added to Sheet C1.1, the Civil Site Plan. The final concurrent construction criteria will be provided prior to the building permit approval. Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - light pole base location , 045 - ES1.1 - ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN.pdf Is there any way this light pole base could be re-located, so the east to west drive aisle meets the minimum width for two way travel? Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:39 AM The dimension on the previous plans was incorrect, and has been corrected. The drive aisle width is 24'. Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.410.060.A.2.- Easements - A 10' Public Utility Easement must be provided along the perimeter of the property along the public street(s). Please find the City Standard Public Utility Easement uploaded in the City documents file for your review, and execution. This easement must be reviewed, approved and executed by the review engineer and the City commission, and filed with the County Clerk and Recorders office, prior to site plan approval. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 4:01 PM The draft easement is adequate. Please have the ownership execute the draft and submit the executed hard copy to the review engineer for final review and approval. Site plan approval will be conditional of the review engineers final approval, City commission approval and final execution, and filing with the County Clerk and Recorders office. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:40 AM Updated easements with wording matching the City template is provided. Easements will be recorded prior to site plan approval. See document "21 Utility Easement - 10 feet" Engineering, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.410.060.A.2- Prior to further review, the applicant must provide a draft copy of the public street and utility easement granting additional right-of-way along 5th Avenue for review. The easement must use the City standard template. The template has been provided in the City Documents and Staff Reports folder. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 4:01 PM The draft easement is adequate. Please have the ownership execute the draft and submit the executed hard copy to the review engineer for final review and approval. Site plan approval will be conditional of the review engineers final approval, City commission approval and final execution, and filing with the County Clerk and Recorders office. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:41 AM Updated easements with wording matching the City template is provided. Easements will be recorded prior to site plan approval. See document "22 Public Street and Utility Easement - 4 feet" Engineering, Cycle 1 Library Comment: The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) on City standard record Form prior to site plan approval. The City Standard Template has been uploaded to the City Documents File for review and execution. Reviewer Response: Mikaela Schultz - 11/4/24 3:53 PM Please populate the notary block in this draft, and then execute the SID waiver. Submit the owner executed hard copy to the review engineer for final review, approval and execution by the City commission and filing with the County Clerk and recorder's office. Final site plan approval is conditional of receipt and filing of the waiver with the County Clerk and Recorder. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:49 AM See updated document "17 Waiver of Right to Protest DRAFT". The final version will be recorded prior to Site Plan Approval Engineering, Cycle 1 Markup: ENG - Drive Approach Detail , 018 - C1.4 - SITE DETAILS.pdf BMC 38.400.090.b. - Commercial Drive Access - Please remove the residential driveway approach detail and replace it with the City Standard Non-Residential (Commercial) Driveway approach detail prior to site plan approval and infrastructure submittal. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:51 AM The approach detail on Sheet C1.4 has been updated to a non-residential driveway approach. Engineering, Cycle 2 Markup: ENG - CCON note #1 , 015 - C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN.pdf Please confirm this note with written approval from the fire marshal, prior to concurrent construction approval and final building permit approval. The Concurrent Construction Phasing notes as written are otherwise generally acceptable. Please be advised that any delays to building construction milestones due to the inaccuracy, incompleteness, or revision of the infrastructure plan set will not be the responsibility of the City. Engineering, Cycle 2 Markup: ENG - Concurrent Construction Plan , 015 - C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN.pdf No reference to the roundabout traffic calming improvement have been made in these phasing plan notes. Include reference to the roundabout improvements in this concurrent construction plan and on this drawing conditional of site plan approval. Fire Department, Cycle 1 Comment: Provide a more comprehensive narrative for concurrent construction. Provide exhibit specifying fire lane signage. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:52 AM Additional concurrent construction narration has been added to Sheet C1.1, the Civil Site Plan. The fire lane signage has been updated on Sheet C1.7, the Signage and Striping Plan, to address the end of the fire lane. Parks Department, Cycle 1 Markup: Parks, 14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table.pdf Please add some additional narrative information on your cash in lieu request. Please include a section in the narrative that specifically requests to provide cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, cite the proper code section that allows to you make that request (Sec. 38.420.030), and then cite any criteria that you are using to justify your CILP request from the commissions ordinance. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:55 AM See updated document "14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table" for requested information. Parks Department, Cycle 1 Markup: Parks, 14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table.pdf Please see revised parkland tracking table provided in city documents folder. The current CILP value is $2.65. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:55 AM See updated document "14 Parkland Narrative and Prelim Table" for updated tracking table. Parks Department, Cycle 2 Comment: CILP payment must be made prior to final site plan approval. Planning, Cycle 1 Markup: Clarify office space, 004 - A0.12 - OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS -INTERIOR AMENITIES.pdf Clarify if this office space is a coworking space or an office for on site management. Office space for on site management cannot count towards open space requirements. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:56 AM The office space (room 130) has been excluded from the open space calculations. See updated drawing "004 - A0.12 - OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS -INTERIOR AMENITIES" Planning, Cycle 1 Markup: Error, 047 - ES1.3 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS PHOTOMETRICS.pdf Is the 205.7 fc an error? Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:56 AM The 205.7FC is not an error, the calculation point happened to fall directly below the wall mounted light fixture capturing the bright spot on the wall directly below the light fixture. There is no maximum level requirements for one point, and the average across the South Building Facade is 0.5FC. Planning, Cycle 1 Markup: Update narrative, 06 Project and DEM Narrative.pdf Update the narrative so that the incentives being requested aren't covered. Don't list out all incentives, just the ones that are being used and clearly state how the project is usign them. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:56 AM The narrative has been updated to clarify the incentives that are being requested, excluding those that are not being requested. See updated document "06 Project and DEM Narrative" Planning, Cycle 2 Comment: BMC section 38.340.090.D.3 applies to this application because a previous demolition, COA and Site plan application (23354) was denied in part on failure to meet criteria found in BMC section 38.340.090.C, specifically subsection 3 whether the subsequent development complies with section 38.340.050. The two-year stay [on issuance of a demolition permit] may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. BMC 38.340.090.D.3. This application, 24493, constitutes an alternative proposal that, if approved, terminates the two- year stay on issuance of a demolition permit. In addition to other relevant criteria found within Chapter 38 of the BMC, to be approved this application must demonstrate compliance with all relevant criteria within BMC division 38.340. These criteria include those found in BMC 38.340.090.C. and 38.340.050.C, D, and E. Note that subsections A and B of 38.340.050 are inapplicable because this application proposes construction of a new structure, rather than preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of an existing historic building (as provided in subsection A), or alteration to an existing building (as provided in subsection B). Additionally, subsection F is inapplicable because no tax abatement certificate of appropriateness is sought in this application. Please supplement this application with additional information regarding compliance with the relevant criteria listed above. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 11/26/24 3:19 PM See updated document "32 Certificate of Appropriateness" for detailed responses to each NCOD Guideline as requested. Reviewer Response: Sarah Rosenberg - 11/21/24 3:37 PM The document should explicitly outline the separate guidelines/subsections under each section. For instance, use headings such as A. Topic, followed by Guideline 1, Guideline 2, Guideline 3, etc. Clearly indicate how each guideline is being addressed. If a guideline is not feasible or applicable, explicitly state that—similar to how some points are explained in the accompanying narrative. Specifically, for the multi-household section, each subsection must be addressed in greater detail, clearly explaining how the requirements are being met or why they do not apply, while also demonstrating how they align with the policy introduced at the beginning of each section. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 11/20/24 11:10 AM See uploaded document "32 Certificate of Appropriateness" for responses to 38.340.050.C,D, and E. Reviewer Response: Sarah Rosenberg - 11/19/24 10:23 AM The narrative provided outlines how it addresses 38.340.090.D.3 but it also needs to include how the application demonstrates compliance with Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness. 38.340.050.C,D, and E. C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures is encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or their components and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and surrounding structures. D. When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this section, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district. Application of the design guidelines may vary by property as explained in the introduction to the design guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design for new structures or additions to existing structures, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The NCOD Design Guidelines that would be applicable to this application is chapter 2, Design Guidelines for all properties and chapter 3, design guidelines for residential character areas, multi-household design. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this chapter. Development in the NCOD must comply with all other applicable development standards of this chapter. Include an analysis on how the development complies with these criteria. Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 11/13/24 8:47 AM See uploaded document "31 Early Termination of Two Year Stay" for responses. Planning, Cycle 5 Comment: Send to oversight for public notice 12/6-12/30. Solid Waste, Cycle 1 Markup: SLD Waste, 034 - A1.01 - SITE PLAN.pdf 1. must be written into covenants that it is managements responsibility to move trash containers to the tip sight on collection day. 2.tip pad must be heated. 3. must have 50 foot straight approach to the tip pad. no parking allowed within the straight approach. 4. will need a turn around for refuse truck we cannot back out onto street, Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 10:59 AM The Architectural Site Plan, A1.01 has been updated to show the trash loading area (tip pad) at the street, and heated sidewalk from the trash room to this location. This enables the trash to be picked up with a 50' straight approach, without entering the parking lot or requiring a turn around. Covenants will be written specifying it is management's responsibility to move trash containers to tip sight on collection day. Transportation, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.540.050.5.c: Exterior bicycle parking location should be within 50 feet of an entrance to a building and ideally a main entrance like the one on the NE corner of the project site. The two racks on the southern end of the building should be expanded to allow more short term use by more occupants or visitors. The exterior bicycle parking on the west side of the building is hidden on an alley access and is not visible from the main street. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Comment: A signed copy of the Building Permit Landscape & Irrigation Self-Certification Form (Appendix E) is necessary to receive a building permit. See the "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual" - 3.1.2 Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Comment: Prior to commencing any work, the applicant must contact the Water Conservation Division to schedule a preinstallation meeting. Include a note on the landscaping and irrigation plans that the applicant’s team will need to schedule this preinstallation meeting. See the "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual" - 3.1.2 Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Plant Factor, 022 - L 001 - Notes and Legends.pdf Deschampsia cespitosa is considered a .6 plant factor by the City of Bozeman Water Conservation Division Plant List. When the prescriptive pathway has been selected by the applicant all landscaped areas other than turf grass must consist solely of low and/or very low water vegetation (plant factor of 0.3 or less). See "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.2.1 "Landscape Design Standards", Prescriptive Landscape Design Pathway (percentage-based approach), 1), b). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:00 AM Deschampsia cespitosa has been replaced with Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' which has a 0.1 plant factor. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Riser Height, 033 - L 701 - Irrigation Details.pdf Hunter PROS-4 has a 4" riser. Overhead irrigation must use a 6â minimum riser. See âCity of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manualâ, Section 3.3.1 âIrrigation Design Standardsâ, âSprinklers/Overhead Irrigationâ, 4). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:00 AM Overhead irrigation has been revised to specify Hunter PROS-06 that uses a 6"riser. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Layout, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Current head layout does not achieve head to head coverage. Overhead irrigation spacing must be designed to achieve head to head coverage. See âCity of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manualâ, Section 3.3.1 âIrrigation Design Standardsâ, âSprinklers/Overhead Irrigationâ 5). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:00 AM The overall irrigation plan has been updated to achieve the required head to head coverage. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Sprinkler Head Hardscape Spacing, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Sprinkler heads must be spaced a minimum of 2" from hardscape edges per City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual Section 3.3.1, Sprinklers/Overhead Irrigation, 3). Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Drip Irrigation Flush, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Drip irrigation must be installed with the ability to easily flush the line. See âCity of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manualâ, Section 3.3.1 âIrrigation Design Standardsâ, âDrip Irrigationâ, 4) Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Comment: Irrigation Water Requirement (IWR) is missing. See City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual Section 3.3.3, Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design for Final Plat and Site Plan 1). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM IWR table has been included on the L600 Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Zone Flow, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Not all irrigation zones labels include their flow rate. See "City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3 "Irrigation Design plan Requirements", "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 3), i). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM All irrigation zone labels now include the flow rate. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Irrigation Control Valves, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, size, and quantity of the irrigation control valves. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), g). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Irrigation control valve spec and quantities have been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Backflow Device, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, and quantity of the backflow prevention device. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), b). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Backflow preventer spec and quantity has been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Isolation Valves, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, size, and quantity of the isolation valves. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), f). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Isolation valve spec and quantities have been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Drip Irrigation Filter and Pressure Regulator, 032 - L 700 - Irrigation Details.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, size, and quantity of pressure regulators and filters for drip irrigation. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), f). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:01 AM Drip pressure regulator spec and quantities have been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 1 Markup: WTRCON Drip Irrigation, 031 - L 601 - Overall Irrigation Plan.pdf Revise plans to include make, model, and size of the drip irrigation that will be used. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), j). Reviewer Response: Eric Neustrup - 10/24/24 3:19 PM Make and model of drip irrigation must be included in the irrigation schedule. See "City of Bozeman landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards Manual", Section 3.3.3, "Required Elements of the Irrigation System Design Plan for Final Plat or Site Plan", 2), j). Responded by: Lindsey Von Seggern - 10/16/24 11:02 AM Drip irrigation spec has been added to the table on L601. Water Conservation Division, Cycle 2 Comment: Pressure regulating devices must be installed to ensure proper operation. This may be accomplished by using pressure regulators at the zone valve or integrated into the sprinkler body. See &ldquo;City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards manual&rdquo;, Section 3.3.1 &ldquo;Irrigation Design Standards&rdquo;, &ldquo;System&rdquo; 3). Water Rights, Cycle 1 Comment: BMC 38.410.130. Water Adequacy: The project's estimated annual municipal demand from the project is 11.43 acre-feet. A credit volume of 01.71 acre-feet has been applied based on the historic metered demand from the properties reducing the development's demand to 9.72 acre-feet which must be offset. At the City's current CILWR fee rate of $6,000/AF the CILWR fee for the project is $58,339. Payment must be made prior to the final site plan approval. The City would like to make the owner aware of an available CILWR rebate of approximately 20% for residential units, released at occupancy if high-efficiency fixtures (toilets, washers, and shower heads) are installed. A rebate agreement template outlining the terms of the rebate offer has been uploaded. If the owner is interested please update the agreement using track changes with the owner information and send the word document to Griffin Nielsen at gnielsen@bozeman.net. If there are any questions about the agreement please reach out over email. The agreement should be finalized prior to final plan approval.