Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Comments Narrative MASTERBridger Point Master Site Plan Application Master Site Plan Response to Concept Review Comments Project Name 24681 Bridger Point CONR The following comments are from the COB Review Comments Report generated on 8/16/24. Our responses are bolded. 1) COB Comment Ref #34 - Addresses can be issued when this has reached "adequacy" and been approved by Planning and Engineering. RESPONSE: Noted. The site has the existing address of 4500 E Valley Center Rd. Unit 1 will be the Phase 1 Chick-Fil-A, Unit 2 will be the Phase 2 Drury Hotel. 2) COB Comment Ref #24 - North 19th Avenue Shared Use Path - Pursuant to 38.230.100.A.6 (plan review criteria) and 38.400.110 (transportation pathways) BMC, the development review committee (DRC) will require the applicant to construct a 10-foot shared use path along the North 19th street frontage with phase 1 of the development. The applicant must allow for safe and easy multimodal connectivity within the site and provide adequate connection to adjacent developments and the general community. Shared use path is required to complete the North 19th street section and is supported by the growth policy. Shared use path has typically been constructed with redevelopment along the North 19th corridor and there is an existing pedestrian crossing at the I-90 eastbound on-ramp. This section of shared use path is a critical missing piece for the community; Any improvements within MDT ROW must be designed to MDT standards and be approved by MDT. Typically, MDT doesn't allow shared use path in their ROW and a shared use path outside of the ROW will require a trail easement. A template trail easement has been uploaded to the city documents folder. The current development proposal does not satisfy these code requirements. The master site plan should identity this improvement within phase 1. More detailed design plans should be provided with the phase 1 site plan. RESPONSE: The City of Bozeman has removed this requirement. Please see the email from Simon Lindley. 3) COB Comment Ref #29 - ENG Shared Use Path Alignment - Pursuant to 38.230.100.A.6 (plan review criteria) and 38.400.110 (transportation pathways) BMC, the development review committee (DRC) will require the applicant to connect the 10-foot shared use path to the pedestrian ramp at the southeast corner of North 19th and East Valley Center. The applicant must allow for safe and easy multimodal connectivity within the site and provide adequate connection to adjacent developments and the general community. Any improvements within MDT ROW must be designed to MDT standards and be approved by MDT. The current development proposal does not satisfy these code requirements. The master site plan should identity this improvement within phase 1. More detailed design plans should be provided with the phase 1 site plan, as well as MDT design approval. RESPONSE: The layout and location of the 10-foot shared use path has been updated from the original submittal per conversations with and feedback from the City of Bozeman. The 10-foot wide pathway no longer runs along the south side of the N 19th site access; however, a 10-foot wide pathway connects from the intersection ramp on the SE corner of N 19th Ave and E Valley Center Rd to the south. This will be included in Phase 1 of the site development as part of the intersection improvements of the site. 4) COB Comment Ref #30 - Stormwater Design - DSSP II.C.2 The subject property is located near the downstream end of the subdivision stormwater drainage basin. The applicant must maintain the historical drainage paths with their design up to the 100-year storm. There are existing roadside ditches along North 19th and Simmental Way. The existing roadside ditches appear to drain around the former MDT Rest Area property before entering MDT maintained culverts across 19th and across the I-90 on-ramp. MDT has a project scheduled for summer 2025 called N 19th Avenue-Bozeman which includes lane reconfiguration, signal upgrades and drainage improvements adjacent to the subject property. It is unclear how the applicant's proposed grading will interact with the existing drainage paths and most recent MDT design plans; (1) Please show the MDT design along 19th with this plan set and label the MDT improvements by others. Please show contours beyond the site so staff can ensure historical drainage pathways are being maintained adjacent or through the site, up to the 100-year storm. I need more detail on the adjacent stormwater basins with the master site plan so I can ensure each phase will function. (2) DSSP II.B.1 - A Storm Drainage Plan shall include a map or plat showing building site(s), open areas, drainage ways, ditches, culverts with the sizes labeled, bridges, storm sewers, inlets, storage ponds, roads, streets, and any other drainage improvements. The map shall also include identification and square foot coverage of the various ground surfaces (i.e. vegetation, gravel, pavement, structures). RESPONSE: The MDT improvements are included on the Master Site plans. Included in this resubmittal is documentation to clarify the historic flow patterns. Please find the “Historical Drainage Flows Narrative” and the exhibit entitled “Exhibit: Historic Drainage Pathways.” These two used in conjunction give a full picture overview of historical drainage pathways. Additionally, an old grading and drainage plan for the existing site (exhibit “L.4”) is included in this resubmittal for you to reference existing culverts and swales on site that are to be removed. Finally, included in this application Sheet SW1.0 – a Stormwater Overview Plan that outlines the proposed drainage pathways with the requested information. Included in this application is a detailed landscaping plan that keys out impervious and landscaped areas with cover type. 5) COB Comment Ref #32 - Phasing; Each phase of the development must function independently and meet the code requirements. (1) Pursuant to 38.540.020.J.1 BMC, the applicant must provide perimeter concrete curbing around the entire phase 1 parking lot. Curbing is necessary to convey stormwater and establish a code compliant parking lot. Please call this out with the master site; (2) Pursuant to 38.220.080.A.2.q BMC, the applicant must reseed any areas within phase 2 which were disturbed by the demolition, or disturbed by phase 1 construction, prior to phase 1 occupancy. Given the unknown timing with phase 2, this is necessary for dust control, weed mitigation and soil stabilization. Please call this out with the master site plan. (3) Please address how the MDT improvements relate to each phase of the development in the phasing narrative. Please address how site improvements, including utilities, relate to each phase of the development in the phasing narrative. RESPONSE: The Master Site Plan Sheet S1.1 shows the proposed site, with perimeter curbing along the west side of Phase 1. Additionally, please see the Phasing and Construction Sheet that shows the curbing as well as callouts that any Phase 1 disturbances during Ph 1 construction will be reseeded. Updated narratives have been included. 6) COB Comment Ref #40 - Sanitary Sewer Main Alignment - BMC 38.410.060 The applicant is proposing a large drive through for a busy restaurant over the top of the existing 30-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement. The existing surface across the easement area is currently undeveloped land and asphalt. The applicant is proposing substantially more expensive surfacing across the easement area. An existing 24-inch sanitary sewer interceptor, which is located at the downstream end of the City wastewater collection system and conveys large flows, runs through the existing sanitary sewer easement. Additionally, the proposed Chick-Fil-A building foundation and trash enclosure are directly adjacent to the existing sanitary sewer easement. The proposed site configuration does not allow the City of Bozeman adequate access to maintain or replace the sanitary sewer interceptor without significantly impacting the proposed business and creating a substantial increase in cost to the public. (1) The Director of Utilities, Shawn Kohtz, has requested the applicant reroute the existing 24-inch sanitary sewer main to avoid crossing the proposed drive-through. The sewer main should be routed such that maintenance of this critical sewer interceptor with large flows can be accomplished without unreasonable interference to the business. The applicant must provide a new city standard easement for the sewer main. The City preferred surfacing across the easement area is asphalt with minimal curbing; or, (2) If there isn't sufficient grade to reroute the existing 24-inch sanitary sewer main, the Director of Utilities, Shawn Kohtz, will require applicant to sign a hold-harmless and provide a new easement for the existing sanitary sewer alignment and specifically acknowledge the site and business operations would be impacted, at the owner's risk and cost, for sewer main maintenance or replacement of the sewer main on the subject property. The new easement would also state the City will not replace the surfacing or structures back to the original condition, and that cost and construction will be the burden of the property owner. A new easement and hold-harmless would need to be approved via the City's legal department. RESPONSE: After communications with the owner and COB, it has been decided that the sewer main will remain where it is currently located. 7) COB Comment Ref #42 - Traffic Impacts (1) BMC 38.220.080 A. 2.g. - The applicant must submit a peak hour trip generation value and an average daily trip generation value to the City for each phase with the master site plan. Please state when the peak hour is expected to occur for each phase, and also give us the worst case peak hour for the entire project. The applicant should add this information to the TIS waiver request that was submitted. Generally the City will grant a TIS waiver if the intersections and streets are fully built out, or if MDT controls the adjacent collector and arterial intersections. The application must document the traffic impacts and trip generation information is consistent with how the city has reviewed other projects throughout the city (2) The applicant must submit a peak hour queuing analysis for the drive-through with the master site plan. This does not appear to be submitted with the application. The application must document the traffic impacts. Staff need additional information to ensure each phase will function (3) The applicant must submit a drive-through service rate for Chick-Fil-A. The applicant must coordinate the signal timing at the intersection of North 19th and East Valley Center with MDT for each phase. The application must document the traffic impacts. Staff need additional information to ensure each phase will function. RESPONSE: After much discussion with the City of Bozeman, Simon Lindley provided us with the following response to us submitting a queuing analysis: “The city has reviewed the queuing analysis, and we have no further comments on the information provided from TENW. Please have the master site plan developer upload the queuing analysis with the master site plan resubmittal. As Nick pointed out in the TIS waiver determination letter, the MDT permit information (Attachment B) is missing, and we ask that the master site plan developer provide that information with the resubmittal to ensure the internal site remains functional per my original traffic comment.” Please find the queuing analysis and the MDT permit included in this resubmittal. 8) COB Comment Ref #43 - Please submit a copy of the most recent recorded plat from the county. The survey submitted appears to be a draft and it's unclear if this was recorded. RESPONSE: Please find attached the most recently recorded survey. 9) COB Comment Ref #44 - BMC 38.410.060 & DSSP V.D.5 I assume the easement document that was submitted is for the relocated fire hydrant. Please show the 30 foot easement on the master site plan and submit the easement document, with an exhibit, with the applicable phase site plan. RESPONSE: This comment has been clarified with Simon Lindley at the COB. There is one hydrant in Ph 1 (SW of the CFA building), and one hydrant in Ph 2. The Ph 2 hydrant is shown on the Master Site Plan and will include more detailed plans in the Ph 2 Site Plan application in the future. 10) COB Comment Ref #45 - MDT Review Status North 19th Avenue is an MDT urban route. The applicant must contact MDT to determine if the proposed development will require permitting or Systems Impact Analysis. The MDT review process may impact the proposed development layout. In the event MDT requires changes, a modification or resubmittal will be required. All work within the MDT right-of-way must meet MDT standards and specifications. The applicant must provide proof of submittal and approval from MDT prior to final site plan approval. It is unclear what information has been submitted to MDT. It is unclear what MDT improvements will be required for each phase of the proposed project. It is unclear how the timing of MDT improvements will correlate to occupancy for each phase of the proposed project. Please submit documentation and approvals from MDT. RESPONSE: We have been working with MDT for a few years on the reuse of the Rest Area property. MDT assisted in the zoning change, the Simmental Road vacation, and are aware that there will be a Fast Food Restaurant and a Hotel developed on this property. Additionally, they have approved the use of the two proposed buildings and have issued MDT Approach Permit # 8566 for this particular reuse of the Rest Area property. We are currently working with them on the Landscape requirements proposed on MDT's right of way. 11) COB Comment Ref #46 - This application is not sufficient for DRC review. The applicant must submit additional drawings and documents for review by staff from each department. DRC Staff cannot provide a full review until the application provides all required elements. Once additional information is provided for review, staff may have additional unresolved comments and conditions on the master site plan. Please acknowledge the submittal is complete with the next review cycle. In general, Engineering needs more detailed drawings and documents with the master site plan to address the following, but not limited to; phasing, construction management, stormwater, MDT review status, circulation & access design, and utility layout. In general, detailed water, sewer and stormwater calculations may be provided with each phase site plan rather than with the master site plan. The applicant must coordinate their design with the phase 1 site plan application and the MDT project on N 19th scheduled for summer 2025. Plan sheets within the master site plan and the phase site plans must all be coordinated. RESPONSE: More detailed drawings are included in this resubmittal. Please see Sheets C0.0 – SW1.0, the updated narratives, the Phasing and Construction Plan, and correspondence with MDT. Detailed water, sewer, and stormwater calculations will be provided with each phase. 12) COB Comment Ref #49 - DSSP V.D.5 - The applicant is advised that trees or other significant landscaping features cannot be placed within 10 feet of a water or sewer main. The applicant is also advised that permanent structures are not allowed within a utility easement. Please keep this in mind when the site is reconfigured to address planning and engineering comments on internal roadway design, utilities, etc. The applicant is advised that existing easements must be free and clear 24/7 during construction so City crews have access to perform maintenance on existing utilities. RESPONSE: Please see the updated landscaping plans. 13) COB Comment Ref #50 - DSSP Plans and Specifications Review Policy A. -Plans, specifications, and submittals for public infrastructure improvements and fire service lines must be submitted to the City Engineering Department by the design engineer through the engineering Project Dox Portal (https://www.bozeman.net/services/development-center) for infrastructure/fireline review prior to building permit issuance. The applicant is advised the Engineering Division anticipates to start charging for infrastructure/fireline reviews in spring 2025. The master site plan and applicable phase site plan must reach adequacy prior to initial infrastructure review. (fire service lines, relocated fire hydrant, relocated sewer main). RESPONSE: Noted. 14) COB Comment Ref #51 - BMC 38.270.030.C - Completion time for site development: Provision of municipal central water distribution, municipal sanitary sewer collection systems, streets, and stormwater systems means that the criteria in either subsection a or subsections b and c are met. All improvements must be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit (pursuant to the criteria established in subsection a) for any building within the site, except when concurrent construction is an identified purpose of the initial project review and approved pursuant to the criteria established in subsection b and c of this section. Public improvements which could utilize concurrent construction include the fire hydrant relocation and sewer main relocation. Concurrent construction must be applied for with the site plan review. The fire hydrant relocation could fall under section C but the sewer main relocation would likely fall under section D given the fact that the sewer main is one of the most critical pieces of sewer infrastructure in the entire city. Section D requires the applicant to financially guarantee the improvements at 150%. If the applicant chooses to apply for concurrent construction, DRC would need to decide which section the improvements would fall under and whether or not to approve the request; The majority of applicants choose concurrent construction. Please review the comments and choose your path during the next review cycle. RESPONSE: Noted. 15) COB Comment Ref #52 - ENG Fire Access Please see comments from fire regarding secondary access. Pursuant to 38.400.010.A.8 BMC, the applicant must provide a fire access. More detail is needed to ensure the fire access will function. As proposed, the fire access will need to connect back to the existing Simmental Way with some sort of all weather access road at a minimum. All surfacing will need to be rated for a fire truck. Please provide turning movements for Scott to review. RESPONSE: Per the meetings between COB and ownership team, Scott Mueller made it known that he is removing this requirement as it is not feasible on this site. 16) COB Comment Ref #53 - ENG Existing Sewer Manhole Access - The applicant must ensure City crews have access to all manholes and valves. The proposed layout does not allow crews access to the sewer manhole located to the southeast of the site near the end of Simmental ROW. The southeast corner of the site needs to be revised to address fire and utility access between Simmental Way and the subject property. RESPONSE: The existing sanitary sewer manhole is located outside of this property and outside of the property fence and therefore is not accessible from the project site. It is most likely accessible via the north end of Simmental Ave. This is visible from Google Map if you drop onto the highway next to the manhole. 17) COB Comment Ref #5 - As proposed, Master Site Plan is not adequately showing convincingly complying fire access. More specifically a secondary access from SE corner of property. RESPONSE: Per the meetings between COB and ownership team, Scott Mueller made it known that he is removing this requirement as it is not feasible on this site. 18) COB Comment Ref #33 - NWE - Please submit a construction application on NWE website for removal of existing utilities and installation of new ones. RESPONSE: A NWE construction application will be submitted and approved before construction. 19) COB Comment Ref #31 - Commercial project, no park and recreation requirements. RESPONSE: Noted. 20) COB Comment Ref #7 - This application is not sufficient for DRC review. The applicant must submit the following items for review by staff. Each item will be listed as an individual comment. DRC Staff cannot provide a full review until the application provides all required elements. RESPONSE: All requested items are being re-submitted. 21) COB Comment Ref #9 - MSP Checklist Item #8 – Draft design guidelines were not provided. This is an open requirement and can include coordinated lighting, signage guidelines, stamped concrete crosswalk pattern details, architectural details, open space seating, and design of the shared use path to the south of the restaurant, among others. RESPONSE: The details included on Sheet S1.2-S1.4 reflect the general design guidelines of the site. 22) COB Comment Ref #11 - MSP Checklist Item #11 – The proposed phasing plan will need to provide details for A-D. The purpose of the master site plan is a generalized development plan to coordinate phasing within a project. Providing a single phasing line does not meet level of information needed for the City and the DRC to review the project. - For Items A and B – The limit of construction for each phase should specify how the phase will be separated/protect from phases with occupancy and active business with the public. With the completion of phase 1 how will the edge of the phase be separated from the public use area? Will there be a curb, a fence, etc. How will the surface of phase 2 be treated following construction of phase 1 prior to construction of phase 1. - For Item C – Provide a construction management plan for each phase. Provide a construction route map for each phase. How will construction traffic for phase 2 and phase 1 business traffic be separated or safety provided. The construction management plan includes a staging area, trailer, location for spoils, fencing, and materials storage. - For Item D – Phasing of infrastructure including utilities, fire lines, stormwater, irrigation, wells, streets, roads, pathways, and trails will need to be provided in the phasing plan. A narrative version of the phasing plan will need to list all infrastructure to be completed with each phase corresponding to a phasing map. RESPONSE: Included in this resubmittal is a Phasing and Construction Plan Sheet and an updated Phasing Plan (within the Project Narrative), which shows and discusses the requested items. 23) COB Comment Ref #12 - SP Checklist Item #5 – Provide a comprehensive narrative for the master site plan that includes the project type, proposed use scope, proposed entitlement period, phasing, size of buildings, heights of buildings (if known), number of required and provided parking spaces, required and provided commercial open space, and any other project details related to the overall development of the master site plan. The master site plan is intended to provide a solid foundation for individual site plan review of each phase and coordination of public improvements. The applicant will need to provide additional details within the master site plan that addresses the phased construction and management of shared infrastructure and facilities and demonstrate how the project will work as a whole when fully constructed. The narrative discussion should facilitate coordination between phases of the following topics: Utilities and infrastructure, walkways through both phases of the site including pedestrian and bike infrastructure, phased open space, phased parking, phased landscaping and irrigation, general building design, general site design, general lighting design, necessary easements and agreements. RESPONSE: Please find the updated Project Narrative included in this re-submittal. Additionally, a Phasing and Construction plan sheet is included that provides more details of the phased construction. 24) COB Comment Ref #13 - SP Checklist Item #6 – The N1 mailing list appears to be missing some names based on a cursory review by City Staff. Please clarify that a 200- foot buffer was applied to all exterior property lines of the site and contact information was obtained from tax records, not Montana Cadastral. RESPONSE: The N1 mailing list has been updated. 25) COB Comment Ref #14 - SP Checklist Item #12 - The existing conditions survey is very helpful, but a copy of the most recent plat is also required. Has any work on the plat been done to aggregate or rearrange lot lines to accommodate the proposed uses? This requirement also includes all existing recorded easements if not shown on the plat. RESPONSE: Included in this resubmittal is the most recent filed plat “Amended Plan J-5-F.” All easements are shown on the plat. The plat shows vacated lot lines to aggregate the site. 26) COB Comment Ref #15 - SP Checklist Items 38-42 – The site statistics provided on the master site plan coversheet are required for the entire site, not just the phase 1 development. Staff will need enough information to review zoning and design requirements for the full master site plan. This included site coverage, parking tables and open space tables. Staff is unlikely to recommend approval of the master site plan and release it for public notice until the overall zoning basics can be verified. RESPONSE: A cover sheet S0.0 is included in this resubmittal that includes site statistics. 27) COB Comment Ref #16 - SP Checklist Item #51 – Provide an ADA certification block for the master site plan. RESPONSE: An ADA certification has been included on the Master Site Plan cover page, S0.0. 28) COB Comment Ref #17 - SP Checklist Item #57-58 – Provide a general civil plan that includes a construction route map and construction management plan. RESPONSE: Included in this resubmittal is a Phasing and Construction sheet. 29) COB Comment Ref #18 - SP Checklist Item #59-65 – Provide a general utility plan that includes general utility locations necessary to serve phases 1 and 2. A more specific phase 2 utility plan can be provided with the phase 2 site plan submittal. RESPONSE: Included in this application is a general utility plan. A more specific Ph 1 utility plan is provided in the Ph 1 site plan application. 30) COB Comment Ref #19 - SP Checklist Item #77 – Provide block frontage classifications on the site plan. The applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed development plan is meeting block frontage based on building placement, general building entrances, parking location, and general landscaping. This can be general but some basic block frontage analysis is required in the narrative and drawings. RESPONSE: Please see the updated drawings showing how this proposed development meets block frontage requirements. Additionally, block frontage is addressed in the Project Narrative. 31) COB Comment Ref #20 - SP Checklist Item 91-95 & 98 - Provide landscaping and irrigation information for the entire master site plan. The phase 2 area may be a generalized plan but needs to show areas of public landscaping and how they will be phased, landscaping of shared amenities like internal roadways serving both phases, and the shared use path along 19th and the southeast corner of the site, as well as the irrigation main line from the well and phasing of irrigation components. Provide a tree preservation plan, or general statement that all trees will be removed and with what phases. RESPONSE: Please find the updated Landscape Plans included in this re-submittal. Landscape Plans for both Ph 1 and Ph 2 are included in the Master Site Plan Sheet Sets. 32) COB Comment Ref #21 - SP Checklist Item 100-104 - Provide some overall lighting information for the location of overall site and parking lot lighting, lighting for walkways. This needs to include proposed fixture details. Photometric plans and building mounted lighting may be provided with individual site plan review. RESPONSE: General lighting locations are shown on the Master Site Plan Sheet C1.1. Detailed lighting plans will be included with the Phase 1 Site Plan application. 33) COB Comment Ref #23 - PLNG Shared Use Path for Frontage - The master site plan will need to provide the design of the shared use pathway used to provide block frontage to the restaurant development. This is a transportation pathway as described in BMC 38.400.110. A master site plan submittal is required to coordinate design and placement of transportation facilities across phases. RESPONSE: The design of the shared use pathway is included on the detail sheets in the Master Site Plan set. 34) COB Comment Ref #26 - PLNG Site Plan Checklist Item #8 Traffic Study - Street, traffic, and access information required in Section 38.220.060.A.11, BMC or a waiver, in writing, from the Engineering Division that the requirement is waived prior to application submittal. An additional waiver request has been submitted to the City. This letter is 3 months old. Has there been a response. The applicant must provide a TIS or a TIS waiver in writing from Engineering. RESPONSE: The response here is the same as to Comment 7 above. After much discussion with the City of Bozeman, Simon Lindley provided us with the following response to us submitting a queuing analysis: “The city has reviewed the queuing analysis, and we have no further comments on the information provided from TENW. Please have the master site plan developer upload the queuing analysis with the master site plan resubmittal. As Nick pointed out in the TIS waiver determination letter, the MDT permit information (Attachment B) is missing, and we ask that the master site plan developer provide that information with the resubmittal to ensure the internal site remains functional per my original traffic comment.” Please find the queuing analysis and the MDT permit included in this resubmittal. 35) COB Comment Ref #27 - PLNG Block Frontage - This design is not meeting block frontage for N.19th Avenue a Gateway Frontage. Standards including building placement, required building entrances, and parking location can be found in BMC 38.510.030.E. All Gateway Frontage sites must also comply with Landscape Frontages standards in 38.510.030.C except the three standards listed above specific to Gateway sites. These include facade transparency, weather protection, and landscaping. Any standards related to building design (i.e. transparency and weather protection) may be provided with the individual phase 2 site plan, however you will need to demonstrate planning for building entrances. Currently, no entrances or connections are shown to the shared use path (see comment #39) or the sidewalk along 19th. The design of landscaping and fencing does not meet the Gateway Block frontage standards. The entrance into the site from 19th is considered an internal roadway. Internal Roadway standards are located in BMC 38.510.030.F. Facade transparency, landscaping, and sidewalks are required. Staff recommends this application request a departure from the 12-foot sidewalk requirement, unless a storefront will be provided along this access (south side of the hotel). Neither the CFA designs nor this landscaping plan shows landscaping along the internal roadway. Again, the master site plan is required to coordinate design and conveyance of all transportation connections. RESPONSE: Please find the updated landscaping and master site plans included in this resubmittal that show the site being in compliance with Gateway Frontage standards. Based on the many conversations we’ve had with the City on the shared use pathway on this site, we hereby request a departure from the 12-foot sidewalk. The master site plan has been updated to connect the hotel to the shared path to the south of the Ph 2 building. An additional block frontage analysis is included in the “Project Narrative”. 36) COB Comment Ref #35 - PLNG Intersite Connectivity and Internal Roadway - BMC 38.520.050.C and D contains requirements for intersite connectivity and internal roadway design to meet block standards. To increase the function and appearance of internal roadways on large sites (greater than two acres), street trees and sidewalks must be provided on both sides of all internal access roadways, This includes the north-south driveway and the east-west access road from 19th. Such as shifting the drive aisle to the north to allow for trees between the shared use path and the driveway. Additionally, the applicant must provide a design that allows for the possibility of inter- site vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to the undeveloped parcel to the south, such as extending the drive aisle to the property line and providing a crosswalk for the shared use path. RESPONSE: Please find the updated landscaping and master site plans included in this resubmittal. 37) COB Comment Ref #36 - PLNG Internal Roadway - Please see comment #35 for required design of the north-south internal roadway including trees and walkways on both sides. RESPONSE: Please see the response to comment #35 above. 38) COB Comment Ref #37 - PLNG Blocks - The east-west pedestrian right of way is required to satisfy block length standards per 38.410.040. In order for this pathway to meet this standard in Section D The applicant must show the proposed access easement on the master stie plan drawings, as well as the the width of the walkway and required setbacks. No other facilities such as driveways, patios or parking may encroach into the required setbacks which are required to be 10-feet wide for pedestrian rights-of-way less than 30-feet wide. RESPONSE: The site has been updated. Please see the Master Site Plan update included in this re-submittal. 39) COB Comment Ref #38 - PLNG SUP-Crosswalk Connection - The shared-use path and pedestrian right-of-way is required to connect to the adjacent crosswalk at the intersection. BMC 38.520.040.B RESPONSE: The site has been updated and this comment is now not applicable. 40) COB Comment Ref #39 - PLNG Transportation Facilities - BMC 38.230.100A.6.a(2)(a) - The applicant is required to continue the detached north-south shared use and pedestrian path along on their property with a standard easement (to be supplied by Engineering). This is a critical safety facility that is nearly complete along the east side of the 19th corridor and is required to be completed with phase 1 regardless of MDT timing for roadway and attached sidewalk completion. Design of the facility is a 10-foot shared use path per the Review Authority and the DRC's discretion. Also see transportation pathways section in BMC 38.400.110. RESPONSE: This requirement was removed by the City. Please see the correspondence with Simon Lindley where he confirms the City has removed this requirement. 41) COB Comment Ref #41 - PLNG Fence - Provide details of the proposed fence. This is a required front setback and fences are limited to 4-feet in BMC 38.350.060. A continuous fence will also be contrary to the required Gateway Block Frontage standards in BMC 38.510.030 which requires a directly accessible building entrance visible from the public street. RESPONSE: There is no proposed fence. 42) COB Comment Ref #4 - SLD Waste 1. Must have minimum of ten foot clear opening measured from door jamb to door jamb. 2. All doors must swing open minimum of 180 degrees. RESPONSE: The plans have been updated to meet these solid waste requirements. 43) COB Comment Ref #47 - Culverts - Engineering comments address the broader deficiencies with grading, drainage, and stormwater across the MSP. Specifically on the culverts, confirm the pipe sizes and invert elevations. There are at least two more culverts to the north of the site, diameter and invert height will need to be provided. See sheet #26 for existing infrastructure on the border with N 19th Ave: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=57609&&dbid=0 RESPONSE: Please find the updated Master Site Plan sheets in this resubmittal that address the deficiencies listed. 44) COB Comment Ref #48- Culvert - Culvert will be demo'd or remain? RESPONSE: The Master Site Plans have been updated to make clearer the culverts that are remaining. The three culverts (all 24”) that are to remain are: 1) under the entrance to the site, 2) located under N 19th Ave at the very NW of the site, and 3) located under the Hwy 90 onramp from N 19th Ave. The latter two are located in the MDT ROW. 45) COB Comment Ref #28 - BMC 38.540.050.A: Bicycle parking should be placed near the main entrance of the building and be accessible without difficulty with ample space for circulation of bikes around other site features and other bikes. Provide bicycle parking per the section in the code under Parking that specifically details amount, location and details on design. FYI the Civil Site Plan and the Architectural Site Plan appear to show bicycle parking in conflicting locations, coordinate drawings. RESPONSE: The plans have been updated to show consistent bike parking. Bike parking will be covered in detail in each individual Site Plan Application. 46) COB Comment Ref #6 - A detailed plan showing the phasing of irrigation mainline and related components is required by the Master Site Plan Checklist. Irrigation water source is located in phase 2 of this multi phased development. Provide information demonstrating that the irrigation system will be able to function after the completion of phase one, during the construction of phase two. See City of Bozeman Community Development Master Site Plan Checklist. RESPONSE: Included in this re-submittal are Landscape and Irrigation Plans for both Phases 1 and 2.