HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Northern - SDP Resub 02 Review Comment Responses4 1 TransportationCandace Mastel5/28/25 10:18 AMCommentBMC 38.540.050.A: Based on the project narrative the project proposes 86 residential units. This would require 86 bicycle parking spaces. 92 bicycle parking spaces have been provided on the interior of the structure, requiring controlled access. While secure, interior parking is desired for residents there will be some residents that will want to temporarily park their bike on the outside of the structure during the day for short duration trips. In addition to this, there is no exterior bicycle parking provided for the commercial use portion of the property. The narrative states that there would be 3520 SF of commercial use. This use would require a minimum of four bicycle parking spaces. This parking CAN NOT be provided where there is controlled access and must be accessible on the exterior of the building. Reference Section 38.540.050.A.4 and 38.540.050.A.5 for details on bicycle parking requirements.ARCH_RESPONSE 2025-1107(4) additional bike parking spot have been added to the plan, located along the Mendenhall frontage, directly adjacent to the Main Residential Lobby entrance.Reviewer Response: Candace Mastel - 10/10/25 8:08 AMSite the sheet where the exterior bike parking required has been placed. The bike parking should be within 50-feet of the main entry.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:24 AMARCH_RESPONSENoted - a portion of provided bike parking will be installed at exterior ROW, in compliance w/ referenced BMC section.Unresolved26 1 EngineeringSimon Lindley6/17/25 4:38 PMChangemarkENG Concrete Work1 - The applicant is advised that Mendenhall is an MDT Urban Route, however the City of Bozeman has jurisdiction over Mendenhall. All curb & gutter, sidewalk and pedestrian ramps on Mendenhall must be constructed per MDT Standards. Please reference the MDT details. 2 - The applicant is advised that N 7th is a controlled by MDT. All curb & gutter, sidewalk and pedestrian ramps on N 7th must be constructed per MDT Standards. Please reference the MDT details. Infrastructure facilities below grade (water, sewer, storm) shall be installed per the City of Bozeman Engineering Standards.SDP-04 - GENERAL CIVIL PLAN & UTILITY PLAN.pdfCIVIL_RESPONSE 2025-1107THE CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALK CALLOUTS ON MENDENHALL HAVE BEEN REVISED TO REFERENCE MDT STANDARD DETAILS. NOTE THAT THE SIDEWALK CHANSE AND CURB CUT/DRIVE ENTRANCE CALLOUTS REFERENCE COB DETAILS AS THERE ARE NO MDT DETAILS FOR THESE ITEMS. THE PEDESTRIAN RAMPS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED BY MDT PRIOR TO THIS PROJECT AND HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT TO REFERENCE THE MDT PROJECT.Reviewer Response: Simon Lindley - 10/15/25 1:00 PMCity of Bozeman Downtown Design Standards - All curb & gutter, sidewalk and pedestrian ramps on Mendenhall must be constructed per MDT Standards. The plan sheet calls out City of Bozeman Standards. Please revise the sheet and review the downtown design standards posted on the main engineering webpage. Please see the condition of approval regarding a surfacing agreement for the pavers. ----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:29 AMCIVIL_RESPONSE All curb, gutter and sidewalk along N. 7th Avenue has been called out to be constructed per MDT detail drawingsUnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
29 1 EngineeringSimon Lindley6/18/25 3:29 PMCommentPlease provide a vehicle turning movement diagram for the parking garage access off the alley. This was a comment on the concept review and was not included in the site plan or traffic impact study. Engineering is specifically concerned about the queuing distance from the sidewalk on N 7th to the garage door, as well as the ability for a vehicle to enter and exit the garage and wait to pull out onto N 7th at the same time. The garage door will generate a queue of at least 1 vehicle every time a resident has to push a button or enter a code and wait for the door to open. Engineering needs additional information on how the site access to the ROW will function. OWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107Vehicle turning movements exhibit (reviewed w/ CoB Staff 11.03 Teams Meeting) has been provided in the Revised Traffic Study - dated October 2025.Reviewer Response: Simon Lindley - 10/15/25 1:05 PMVehicle turning movements to address this comment appear to be missing from the resubmittal. The traffic study doesn't appear to have changed. Please revise. ----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:30 AMOWNER_RESPONSETraffic study will be amended and resubmitted.Unresolved30 1 EngineeringSimon Lindley6/18/25 3:41 PMChangemarkENG TIS Trip DistributionThe proposed residential trips going to the site in exhibit 8 do not appear to add up to 100%. Please verify the trip distribution diagram is accurate and explain the discrepancy. Should 65% on Mendenhall be 70%? The Northern - SDP Traffic Impact Study.pdfOWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107Revised Traffic Study has been provided - dated October 2025.Reviewer Response: Simon Lindley - 10/15/25 1:05 PMThe traffic study doesn't appear to have changed. Please revise. ----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:31 AMOWNER_RESPONSETraffic study will be amended and resubmitted.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
31 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 3:48 PMCommentBMC 38.340.040.A.1. Certificate of Appropriateness. No building, demolition, sign or moving permit may be issued within the conservation district until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the appropriate review authority, and until final action on the proposal has been taken. The subject property is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). In the responses to the Concept Review comments, the applicant stated a CCOA application would be provided with the Site Plan; however, only the checklist was uploaded. No information was provided in the submitted narrative regarding the NCOD requirements, such as the required historical information. Please amend the narrative and submit the required application materials for review of the CCOA application to continue adequacy review. OWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107Additional narrative (draft shared w/ CoB Staff for cursory review on 11.03) has been provided, re: The Northern - SDP CCOA Demo Project Narrative. CCOA Application has been submitted and review fee paid.Reviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/15/25 4:11 PMThe updated project narrative does not address all the additional information required in the CCOA application, such as the historical property record form, historical information, current pictures of structures to be removed, etc. Since a building is proposed to be removed on the site, the Demolition within the NCOD Checklist also needs to be provided and addressed with the application. Additionally, it doesn't appear the associated CCOA application fee has been submitted. Please provide a separate narrative specific to the CCOA criteria and checklists in order for the CCOA to be reviewed with the SP application. Feel free to reach out if you have additional questions on the information requested.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:31 AMOWNER_RESPONSEThe Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation, The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) and the Midtown Urban Renewal District - Action Plan have been reviewed and an amended narrative provided.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
32 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 3:49 PMCommentBMC 38.320.050, note 8.a. Form and intensity standards Non-residential and other mixed use districts. B-2M height limits: for buildings designed for non-residential or mixed-use: Five stories or 60 feet (whichever is less), provided the top floor of five-story buildings within 30 feet of the front property line feature has a stepback of at least ten feet from the front face of the building. Although the application includes an Affordable Housing Plan using the incentive of 2 extra stories, the top floor of the proposed building must still comply with the stepback requirements from the front building faade along both N 7th Avenue and W Mendenhall, as these are both considered front property lines. The submitted Floor Plan for Level 7 shows the building stepped back 17-feet along the N 7th property line with 6-feet wide private residential terraces. This complies with the minimum 10-foot stepback requirement. Regarding the W Mendenhall property line, the Level 7 plan only shows a stepback of 13-feet from the property line and includes 6-feet wide private terraces. This only leaves a 7-foot wide stepback area, which is not compliant with the requirement. Please revise the W Mendenhall building frontage to provide the required 10-foot wide stepback to continue adequacy review.ARCH_RESPONSE 2025-1107Floor Plans and balconies have been revised to provide requsite 10-foot clear from ZLL to building facade, re: SDP-23 - FLOOR PLANS.Reviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/17/25 1:15 PMThe balconies on Level 7 do count towards the required building step back required from W Mendenhall. As mentioned, the definition of Facade in BMC 38.700.070 includes "The entire building front or street wall face of a building." Therefore the balconies are included in the front face of the building. Please revised the W Mendenhall building frontage to provide the required 10-foot wide stepback to continue adequacy review.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:32 AMARCH_RESPOINSEAt Level 7, more than 13'-11" of stepback has been provided between the property line along Mendenhall and the front face of the building. Individual residential balconies at this level are not factored into this stepback calculation as they do not meet the definition of "face or facade of building" as defined in Sec. 38.700.070. - F.We believe we've met the intent of the code section, reducing the scale/mass of the building at the upper floors while also providing open-mesh semi-transparent balconies.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
33 1 EngineeringSimon Lindley6/18/25 3:49 PMChangemarkENG Ex Utility BoxThe City has an existing utility box in the alley ROW near the garage access to the alley. The applicant must ensure the box is protected during construction, or relocated. The utility box appears to potentially conflict with 2-way traffic from the garage access. Please call out the existing utility box and provide a plan for during and after construction to address the concerns. SDP-04 - GENERAL CIVIL PLAN & UTILITY PLAN.pdfCIVIL_RESPONSE 2025-1107THE UTILITY BOX HAS BEEN CALLED OUT TO BE RELOCATED AND COORDINATED WITH THE STREET DIVISION. A PROPOSED LOCATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH A CALLOUT FOR REMOVABLE BOLLARDS TO PROTECT THE BOX.Reviewer Response: Simon Lindley - 10/16/25 10:51 AMThe existing utility box can't just be removed since the box is a necessary asset. Please provide a plan for relocating the utility box. The applicant is responsible for moving the utility box and must coordinate with the Street Division to cut power and move the utility box during construction. Please revise the label to show the relocated utility box by the applicant. ----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:33 AMCIVIL_RESPONSESite Plan design will be revised to illustrate existing utility box relocation to facilitate 2-way traffic garage access accommodationUnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
34 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 3:49 PMCommentBMC 38.380.040.C.3.e. Type A Incentives. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings: For affordable housing developments in the UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, B-3, and M-1 districts, two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story), provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity residential zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of section 38.320.060.B apply. The submitted application includes an Affordable Housing Plan utilizing the incentive for 2 extra stories of height. However, the roof elevation shows an amenity area which would be considered enclosed living space and therefore an additional building story. This area is not exempt from the overall building height unlike elevators and stairways per 38.350.050.D.2. In the response to the Informal comments, the applicant identifies note 8c in BMC 38.320.050, permitting an area not to exceed 10% of the ground floor area to extend above the maximum building height. Staff discussed this note with senior management. The application is not permitted to take the base height of 5 stories, add the AHP incentives of 2 stories, and then take the 10% addition as well. If the applicant chooses to use the 2 extra stories with the AHP, then the 10% addition is not permitted to be utilized. Please revise the proposed building to remove this amenity area or reduce the overall building by one full story to demonstrate compliance with the maximum overall building height to continue adequacy review.ARCH_RESPONSE 2025-1107Rooftop shed roof has been revised / reduced to comply w/ direction received, re: SDP-23 - FLOOR PLANSReviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/17/25 1:29 PMAs staff discussed with the applicant back in July, we would accept a small elevator/stair lobby and associated restrooms to be permitted on the roof in coordination with the shared rooftop deck. However, the portion of the deck which would be covered by a permanent roof is not permitted. The definition of structure in BMC 38.700.170 includes anything constructed or erected. Therefore, while the covered roof deck does not contain walls, it would still count at structured area and is not permitted. Please removed the covered portion of the deck to continue adequacy review.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:33 AMARCH_RESPOINSEDesign has been revised per staff input received on 07.14 meeting. Rooftop amenity will be comprised of an open exterior amenity deck with conditioned elevator/stair circulation, lobby and restrooms.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
44 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 4:19 PMCommentBMC 38.530.070.C. Blank Wall Treatments. Untreated blank walls visible from a public street, pedestrian-oriented space, common usable open space, or pedestrian pathway are prohibited. Blank wall is further defined in BMC 38.700.030 as a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall that does not include a transparent window or door. The proposed eastern elevation meets the definition of a blank wall. The applicant has shown the potential for a green wall along the eastern property line to mitigate the blank wall condition; however no details were provided and the plans show To Be Determined. Please provide additional information on the green wall and how it will address the blank wall to continue adequacy review. This information can be included on the landscaping plan, the elevations plan, or on a separate sheet.ARCH_RESPONSE 2025-1107Repeat Response - Eastern property line design has been revised. Green wall has been replaced w/ masonry wall articulation via alternating CMU block articulation with the exposed concrete column rhythm, re: SDP-24 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALSReviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/17/25 1:37 PMPlease provide documentation of the proposed green wall along the eastern property line on the building elevations and landscaping plans in order to demonstrate compliance with the required blank wall mitigation to continue adequacy review. Additionally, please provide further information on how the green wall will be maintained as there is only a proposed 2-feet wide setback along the eastern property line, and the applicant is not permitted to encroach onto the neighboring property in order to access this area.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:37 AMARCH_RESPONSEEastern property line design has been revised. Green wall has been replaced w/ masonry wall articulation via alternating CMU block articulation with the exposed concrete column rhythm.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
48 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 4:20 PMCommentBMC 38.540.050.A.5. Bicycle parking standards. The intent of this sub section is to ensure required bicycle racks are designed so bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from accidental damage. Please identify the proposed type of bicycle racks for the development. The bicycle racks must comply with the standards outlined in this section in order to continue adequacy review.LAND_RESPONSE 2025-1107The bike rack specification/detail has been provided to the keynotes and detail sheets for the Mendanhall frontage. These racks are custom - per the Downtown Design Standards. The bike racks on 7th will be reused/relocated from the ones that currently are located on the N. 7th Ave and per that street/streetscape project specifications. The interior bike rack specification/detail has been provided, re: SDP-24 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALSReviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/16/25 2:01 PMWe do need to see the type and specifications of the proposed bike racks, both external and internal for the building and site, to make sure they will comply with the city standards. I searched the submitted sheets but couldn't locate either type. Please provide the location within the submitted materials or provide the proposed bike rack designs with the next submittal.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:38 AMLAND_RESPONSENoted - bicycle rack specifications will be provided. The intent is to remove and relocate the 2 existing bike racks on the N. 7th Avenue frontage within 50' of the commercial entry. These racks will need to be removed and reset due to the civil grading changes needed along this frontage to achieve postive drainage.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
49 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 4:20 PMCommentBMC 38.570.040.B. Site Lighting, Building entrances. Illuminance for building entrances (including commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal) must average 5.0 maintained footcandles. The submitted photometric plan only addresses the average lighting for the main commercial entrance. All building entrances must demonstrate compliance with the maximum average 5.0 footcandles. Please provide a revised photometric plan showing compliance with this code provision for all entrances to continue adequacy review.ELEC_RESPONSE 2025-1107The interior calculation zone as well as the interior lobby lights on the roof level have been removed to clarify the roof top lighting levelsunder the roof canopy since these are interior lights and are therefore not included in the exterior photometric plans. The lighting layout under the roof canopy has been revised per the new canopy layout, the type RCR lights have been reconfigured to a lower lumen output, and new calculation zones have been added at the roof lobby doors and roof stairwell door. Average light levels under the roof canopy and at the doors average less than 5.0 fc with these revisions.Types SW1 and BB3 lights have been added to planter boxes and and the reconfigured media wall per coordination with Architecture.Reviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/17/25 1:40 PMThe revised photometric plan provided the building entrance specifications, however, it still shows the Roof Level Interior having an average of 9.8 fc. Please revise the proposed lighting as all building entrances, including the roof entrance, must have a maximum average of only 5.0 fc.----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:38 AMELEC_RESPONSE: UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
51 1 PlanningBailey Minnich6/18/25 4:20 PMCommentBMC 38.540.040.G.2. Site lighting, miscellaneous site lighting specifications. Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all lighting must comply with the following requirements: All outdoor lighting fixtures must be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. The proposed photometrics plan and lighting details sheet identify light fixtures NN-Narrow Beam Uplight Fixture which appears to be located along the roof line for level 2 and would be directed upward to illuminate the building. Additionally, the lighting details on sheet SDP-15 show the BB-Fixture would also not comply with this code section. Please revise the proposed lighting to be directed downward and comply with all outdoor lighting standards to continue adequacy review.ELEC_RESPONSE 2025-1107The type NN light fixtures used as accent lighting have been reconfigured to include a 45 degree end cap as well as a honeycomb louver to contain spill light. These fixture locations have been re-coordinated with the Architectural elevations.Elevation views with photometric calculations for vertical facade wall surfaces have been added to sheet SDP-25, along with the photometric statistics. Average and maximum foot candle values are below 5.0 fc.Reviewer Response: Bailey Minnich - 10/17/25 1:43 PMThe revised photometric plan states the proposed NN light fixtures have been revised to be 'mounted blow the top of the facade walls and aimed down and slightly inward.' BMC 38.570.040.G.7 states "Floodlights, spotlights or any other similar lighting may not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface or angular roof surface may not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade and accent lighting will not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated." Please provide Unresolved52 1 EngineeringSimon Lindley6/18/25 4:21 PMChangemarkENG CCOFF FormThe City has updated the off-site concurrent construction form effective May 2025. The form can be found under the planning application & checklist library at the bottom of the planning website. Please fill out the revised form and provide the applicable information for review. The owner and the applicant must sign the form. 13_Concurrent Construction Sub and Offsite CCOFF.pdfOWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107Revised form has been provided, re: The Northern - SDP Resub 02 Concurrent Const AppReviewer Response: Simon Lindley - 10/16/25 11:14 AMThis comment is unresolved. A new form does not appear to be uploaded. Please fill out the latest off-site concurrent construction form and provide the applicable information for review. The owner and the applicant must sign the form. ----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:38 AMOWNER_RESPONSEWill provide revised form.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
54 1 Forestry DivisionAlex Nordquest6/20/25 10:02 AMChangemarkForestry Changemark note #014" mulch layer (depth), 3' diameter is required. Natural Wood Chip material only. Do not remove entire wire basket for balled & burlapped trees; only remove the top third.SDP-10 - LANDSCAPE DETAILS.pdfLAND RESPONSE 2025-1107Sheet SDP-11 has been updated to note wood mulch at each tree planting area. Sheet SDP - 13 / Detail 1 has been updated to align with the comment for mulch and wire basket removal noted.Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:40 AMLAND_RESPONSEDetail has been revised to align with comments.Unresolved55 1 Forestry DivisionAlex Nordquest6/20/25 10:02 AMChangemarkForestry Changemark note #01Proposed trees cannot be planted within the Street Vision Triangle. Please adjust spacing such that no trees are within the SVT and trees are at least 30' apart from each other.SDP-09 - LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdfLAND RESPONSE 2025-1107All trees (vertical trunks) area planted outside of the 50’ corner site vision triangle for this project site. The tree on 7th is being replanted in the same location that currently holds a tree associated with the 7th Ave roadway/streetscape improvement project. It is our understanding that trees are allowed in the AASHTO Roadway Sight Triangle, per the existing design condition along 7th Avenue. Sight vision triangles and tree planting can be found on sheet 11 for plan reference.Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:40 AMLAND_RESPONSEStreet tree locations are outside of the SVT and have 30' separation or more.Unresolved56 1 Forestry DivisionAlex Nordquest6/20/25 10:02 AMChangemarkForestry Changemark note #02Each blvd/street tree must include a wood chip material mulch ring, minimum 3' diameter 4" depth. Cobble mulch is not accepted around trees and not recommended for blvd landscaping in general - it doesn't break down into nutrients for plants, has poor water-holding capacity, and exacerbates temperature extremes for plant rootzones.SDP-09 - LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdfLAND RESPONSE 2025-1107All keynotes associated with the blvd street trees on Mendenhall and 7th on the landscape plan / sheete 11 are represented as 7.2 – wood mulch per the comment.Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:40 AMLAND_RESPONSEAll street trees will be planted within the required 3' diameter and 4" depth wood chip material mulch.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
68 1 Community HousingDavid Fine7/16/25 2:18 PMComment38.380.030.E.9 - Please note the location of the affordable dwellings on the floor plans for the project and include those floorplans as exhibits in your revised affordable housing plan. OWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107Form has been revised to include noted exhibits, re: Affordable Housing Plan_SDP SubmittalWill provide revised form. See updated Affordable housing plan, floor plans showing the location of affordable units within the building have been added.Reviewer Response: David Fine - 10/28/25 3:14 PMPlease actually submit an Affordable Housing Plan that has these floor plans as exhibits. Please include the floor plan exhibits in the the same file as the AHP. ----------------------------------------------------------Responded by: Mario Ciaralli - 9/17/25 10:43 AMARCH_RESPOINSEAffordable Units will be labeled on Floor Plans. Updated Floor Plans will be included as exhibits to the AHP applicationUnresolved69 2 Forestry DivisionAlex Nordquest9/24/25 10:48 AMChangemarkForestry Changemark note #01No cobble mulch immediately adjacent to trees. Please ensure minimum 3' diameter ring of wood chip material around all trees; consider a larger area of wood chip material to better align with design aesthetics. Rock/stone material doesn't hold moisture for tree roots and doesn't break down into nutrients over time.SDP-09 - LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdfLAND_RESPONSE 2025-1107No cobble mulch is proposed in the tree planting areas / tree grates. These areas will be wood chip material. The only location cobble iscurrently proposed is in a non-planted area between the building and east property line to provide a finished/permeable surface treatment.Unresolved70 2 Forestry DivisionAlex Nordquest9/24/25 10:48 AMChangemarkForestry Changemark note #02Proposed trees cannot encroach the Street Vision Triangle. Please adjust spacing; trees can be spaced as closely together as 30' tree-to-tree.SDP-09 - LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdfLAND_RESPONSE 2025-1107All trees in the current design have been placed outside any street vision trianlges, re: SDP-11 - LANDSCAPE PLAN - SITEUnresolved71 2 Water Conservation DivisionEric Neustrup10/14/25 10:48 AMChangemarkWTRCON WaterSense ControllerIrrigation controller must meet WaterSense criteria. Currently selected controller must be installed with the Hunter Solar Sync Sensor to meet WaterSense criteria. See â??City of Bozeman Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Desing Standards Manualâ? , Section 3.3.1 â??Irrigation Design Requirementsâ?, â??Backflow Device and Controllerâ? 2).SDP-14 - IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND NOTES - STREET LEVEL.pdfLAND_RESPONSE 2025-1107The specifications for the controller have been updated on the sheets to included the Hunter Solar Sync Sensor as noted to meet Water Sense criteria.UnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version
76 2 EngineeringSimon Lindley10/16/25 1:24 PMCommentPlease include a separate signage and striping plan sheet for review and approval through the site plan application. Per internal discussion with the City Engineer, the signage & striping should be reviewed through the site plan if the road alignment will remain roughly the same. The signage shown on the civil sheet is difficult to review and missing information. The signage and striping plan should include the following items listed below.1. Please show each existing and proposed sign, including MUTCD sign designation code and size. 2. Please show the extent and color of all existing and proposed striping (lanes, crosswalks and curb paint). 3. Please show other hardscape items including, but not limited to, trees, light poles and potential utility conflicts with sign posts. 4. No parking signage and yellow curb paint. No parking signs should be angled at 45 degrees to the travel way. 5. One-way signage on Mendenhall and at both garage accesses6. Bus stop signage7. Any other applicable signage that must be replaced or installed as a result of CIVIL_RESPONSE 2025-1107A SIGNAGE AND STRIPING PLAN HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE CIVIL SET TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON ITEMS 1-7 IN THIS COMMENTUnresolved77 2 PlanningBailey Minnich10/17/25 2:13 PMCommentPlease be aware that the City of Bozeman is currently updating its zoning regulations, commonly referred to as the Unified Development Code or UDC. Many planning staff comments outlined in this site plan application may be altered by the forthcoming text amendment. There is no guaranteed date when the UDC may be adopted and in full effect, but if the application does not achieve adequacy under the current regulations, it would need to comply with the new standards. The Draft UDC can be found on the city's website: https://engage.bozeman.net/udc Staff has kept this comment as Unresolved in order to make sure the applicant is aware of the potential update.OWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107NotedUnresolved80 2 Community HousingDavid Fine10/28/25 3:06 PMComment38.380.020.I.3. "If the calculation of the required number of affordable dwellings results in a fraction of an affordable dwelling, the developer must construct affordable dwellings equal to the next lower integer and either provide a cash-in-lieu payment for the additional fractional amount or construct an additional affordable dwelling."8% of 81 is 6.48. The city has not set a cash-in-lieu amount, so the Applicant must designate an additional unit to comply with the standard. OWNER_RESPONSE 2025-1107The Project will provide a cash-in-lieu payment for the additional fractional amount of .48 per the code at time of Building PermitUnresolvedCreated in ProjectDox version