HomeMy WebLinkAboutSite Plan Review Narrative 01-04-20
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 1 of 12
NEXUS POINT SITE PLAN
REVIEW COMMENTS NARRATIVE
APPLICATION 19262
Section 2 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this
report. These conditions are specific to the development.
1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
RESPONSE: This condition is acknowledged
Section 3 – REQUIRED CODE CORRECTIONS
Planning Division
1. Please submit all revisions using Corrections and Revisions cover sheet. Submit a full set
of drawings (2 large format and 1 11x17) with revisions clouded. Include a table of
contents will all drawings and their date of creation/revision. Ensure that the electronic
version includes a fully updated, complete application.
RESPONSE: Included in the resubmittal is a Corrections and Revisions cover sheet and
2 - 11x17 sets of the drawings. The project has substantially changed based on
the city’s review comments and revisions clouds would not be appropriate.
Included in this submittal is a fully updated and completed.
2. General comment. The information submitted for the master site plan is excessive. The
level of detail required for the master site plan entitlement is less than for the site plan. For
example, the civil details, landscaping, lighting and electrical is most applicable to the site
plan application, not the master site plan. Design guidelines for the master plan can account
for those items that must be addressed on the future lots for orientation, landscaping,
parking lot timing of construction and integration, commercial open space requirements,
etc. Phase I Site Plan should only show the plans for Phase I as a completely separate
overall plan.
RESPONSE: We agree but the application we initially submitted was completed in
compliance with the City’s MSP Required Materials Checklist, which still shows that
all the items listed on the SP & SP1 Documents are required. To expedite the review,
we have revised the submittal as requested by the reviewing staff.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 2 of 12
3. General comment. Based on the scale and the proposed property lines, staff highly
recommends this project be processed as a subdivision. The notes and lines that state
“future property line (typ)” reflect that the parcel is going to be subdivided. As the “future
property lines” stand, the blocks would not meet setback standards and easements (refuse,
trails, access, and utility) would require to be displayed and recorded.
RESPONSE: No subdivision of land is proposed. The “future lot lines” have been removed.
4. General comment. Ensure that the MSP and SP have different plans and documents based
on the scope (i.e. elevations shouldn’t be with the MSP, phasing plan should be with MSP
and not SP).
RESPONSE: Although the information required for a MSP is the same as a site plan, per
Form MSP, the resubmittal package has been revised to reduce the amount of
information provided.
5. BMC 38.220.080. Site plan submittal requirements. The application does not meet the PLS
and SP1 form requirements. Setbacks for all property lines not designated or shown
correctly.
RESPONSE: All of the setbacks are now shown on the Site Plan.
6. BMC 38.220.080.A.1.q Provide additional information required by this section including
the addition of all landscaping in right of way into applicable phases, proposed dead end
barriers, revegetation/weed control plan etc. Create a separate phasing plan. Phase I site
plan needs to have an overall site plan that does not show any future phases on the
property.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan shows are the proposed landscaping adjacent to Phase I.
Dead end barricades have been added to the south leg of South 21st. All the
proposed public roadways are being constructed with Phase I.
7. BMC 38.230.040. This project is subject for review of the Design Review Board.
RESPONSE: This condition is acknowledged
8. BMC 38.230.130. A community design framework master plan is required with the master
site plan application. A separate plan should be simple and not cluttered. Show setbacks
based on block frontage standards and ensure that all buildings have publicly accessible
entrances based on the primary façade based on the block frontage in order of precedence
(BMC 38.210.020).
RESPONSE: We are unable to locate anything information in the UDC directing what
information is required by a ”Community Design Framework Master Plan”. Please
provide this information so we can submit it.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 3 of 12
9. BMC 38.410.040. The site is divided up into blocks. Blocks should not be more than 400
feet in length or width. In order to mitigate this, pedestrian or roadway easements should
be included. Staff recommends that South 21st Avenue extend north towards the
neighboring property and through the parking lot. This will help with breaking up the
blocks as well as provide adequate connection and integration of transportation system to
adjacent developments, which is a criteria for plan review (BMC 38.230.100). Although
the property to the north is developed, if there would be any sort of redevelopment in the
future, a transportation connection from the subject property to the neighboring property
could be highly useful.
RESPONSE: Based on additional review by the City, a road extension to the Grace Bible
Church property is not required. A 30’ wide trail corridor access easement and
trail has been provided to fulfill the block length requirement. A copy of the Draft
Trail Easement is included in this submittal for City review.
10. BMC 38.410.060.C. Public utility easements. The city utility public utility easements must
be released and reconvened prior to site plan approval. Public utility easement documents
must be executed, notarized and submitted for review. The easements must be recorded
prior to site plan approval.
RESPONSE: The existing 10’ wide PUE falls within a proposed 60’ wide PUE. We do not
see the need to abandon the 20’ wide easement.
11. BMC 38.410.060.E. Other easements. Provide reciprocal parking and access easement for
drive access and parking between all lots. Reciprocal access and parking easement
document must be executed, notarized and submitted for review. The easement must be
recorded prior to site plan approval.
RESPONSE: All of the development is on one lot. We are unable to create a shared access
easement for one lot.
12. BMC 38.410.100.A.2.f. A setback planting plan is required for the watercourse setback.
Ensure it meets Zone 2 standards.
RESPONSE: The wetlands were previously constructed and approved under a permit
issued by the Corps of Engineers, which included extensive planting. The wetlands
is within a deed restriction and a copy of the approved Deed Restriction is included
in this application.
13. BMC 38.420.060. The proposed park does not meet parkland frontage requirements. A
variance is required.
RESPONSE: The park frontage requirement has been resolved per Addi Jadin’s email. A
copy of that email is included in this submittal.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 4 of 12
14. BMC 38.510.020.F.2. There are new standards for multiple block frontage situations and
a hierarchy of these standards. Ensure that the buildings along Arnold (Landscape block
frontage) are have entrances facing the street and are articulated to meet this standard.
RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to meet the new standards.
15. BMC 38.510.030.J. Special residential block frontage standards require ground floor
living spaces to have a public/private transition element. It appears that option #1 is being
utilized, however, the porch on the ground floor living area of all the buildings is not
raise at least one foot above grade. It is also unclear if there is a gate to the ground level
units from the sidewalk. Show that there is appropriate connectivity to the sidewalk.
RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to meet the Special Residential Block Frontage
standards. There is a minimum of 1’ difference between the finish floor of
bedrooms and back of sidewalk for all the buildings facing a sidewalk or trail.
16. BMC 38.520.040.C.1. Clarify where the proposed gravel trail turns into a sidewalk on the
north side. This gravel trail should also continue to the northern property boundary. The 8’
wide asphalt trail that is to be constructed in both phases should be constructed in the first
phase to provide adequate connectivity and circulation.
RESPONSE: The gravel trail is proposed to be constructed in the 50’ wetlands setback.
The concrete sidewalks into the site will start at the 50’ setback line. The site plan
has been revised to clarify this.
17. BMC 38.520.040.C.4. At least one walkway must be provided for every four rows of
parking or at a maximum spacing of 200 feet. The parking lot on the north and on the
west do not meet this standard.
RESPONSE: A North-South sidewalk has been added to the north development area and
an East-West sidewalk has been added to the future west development area.
18. BMC 38.520.060.B.2.e. Shared open space must be separate from ground level windows,
streets, service areas and parking lots. Many of the common open space areas next to
ground floor residences and the parking lot do not meet this standard. There are multiple
shared open space areas that also do not feature any amenities for users.
RESPONSE: The shared open space areas have been revised to provide for a 3’ wide
separation from ground level windows, streets, service areas and parking lots.
a. Opens space areas not dimensioned or annotated with area as required in form
PLS.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 5 of 12
RESPONSE: The open space areas have been dimensioned and annotated with the
area.
b. Per the definition of open space, usable (BMC 38.700.140), many of the proposed
open space areas do not meet this standard. Landscape separation cannot count
towards open space requirements. It appears that the appropriate amount of open
space has been accounted for, however, areas that do not meet the usable open
space definition must be eliminated from the open space calculations.
RESPONSE: The proposed shared open space areas have been revised to meet the
standards.
c. It is unclear where and what the Open Space Summary that is referenced on the
cover page is. A clearer plan that shows the math of the patios, common open
space, and community center should be provided by building and area.
RESPONSE: The summary has been revised to be clearer.
19. BMC 38.530.050.E. Show weather protection over the main entrance of the clubhouse on
elevations and entrance.
RESPONSE: Weather protection has been added over the main entrance of the
clubhouse.
20. General comment. Clarify the 5 shared parking spaces with office lot for parking lot E.
Assume that the shared parking is a typo since it is only needed for lot D.
RESPONSE: The site has been revised to no longer require the shared parking.
21. BMC 38.550.050.E. Street trees need to be shown on an overall Master Site Plan
Landscape Plan. They need to be on shown along 19th as well as the internal streets.
RESPONSE: The South 19th Street trees will be part of the South 19th widening project.
We have shown the South 19th street trees on the Overall Master Site plan. The
Overall Landscape Plan (Sheet L.S.1.0) shows the proposed boulevard street trees
adjacent to the Phase I development areas.
Solid Waste Division
The trash enclosure plan is acceptable, they just need to make sure that they have 50 feet
straight approach to front of each refuse enclosure. Was too hard to tell from site plan map
if there was the 50 feet.
RESPONSE: The site plan is in compliance with this requirement. A 50’ long dashed line
is shown in front of each Refuse Enclosure.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 6 of 12
Forestry Division
Current plan shows all boulevard trees as one species (Celtis occidentalis, Common
hackberry). Forestry requires a minimum of two species for increased diversity.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been revised to provide two different species on the
street frontages. Celtis Occidentalis - Common hackberry is proposed along
Arnold Street and Malus X ‘Jarmin’ TN – Marilee Crabapple is proposed along
South 21st.
Parks Department; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908
Planning comment #2 from Informal Application 18539 was not addressed. All parks must
have frontage along 100% of their perimeter on public or private streets or roads or meet
the criteria for a reduction to not less than 50%. Please provide specific analysis of the
percentage of parkland frontage on public or private streets or roads for the Nexus Point
proposal and describe how the criteria for the reduction are met. The amount and quality
of frontage must be improved—for example, rather than fronting on private parking lots,
where frontage must be adjacent to developed lots, buildings should be cited along the park
or a yard to mitigate. Consider showing that every parking space missing from frontage
reduction is provided or that other mitigation is provided.
Staff does not support the proposed ratio of parkland to Improvements-in-lieu of parkland.
Required parkland contribution is 2.58 acres with the equivalent of 1.29 acres to be
provided as cash-in-lieu (or improvements-in-lieu) of parkland. The applicant’s proposal
of 1.18 acres of land is only 45.7% of the required parkland contribution. In an area of
high-density residential development and with a park not meeting frontage requirements,
the significant reduction of parkland does not appear to meet the criteria for acceptance of
cash-in-lieu as established in Resolution 4784. Upon resubmittal, please address the criteria
for the CIL request that goes beyond the required equivalent of 4 du/acre at 1.40 acres.
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee discussed this item
at their meeting on July 25th but did not take any action because of the aforementioned
code corrections and request for further clarification. The CIL proposal will be reviewed
by the committee upon revision.
RESPONSE: The park frontage requirement has been resolved per Addi Jadin’s email. A
copy of that email is included in this submittal.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 7 of 12
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
General Comments
1. Provide documents for the Public Street and Utility easements on Arnold Street and
South 21st Avenue.
RESPONSE: A Draft Public Street and Utility Easement for Arnold Street and South
21st Avenue is included in this submittal for City review.
2. Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.410.130. The payment of cash-in-lieu (CIL) of
water rights payment needs to be made prior to Site Plan approval.
RESPONSE: This condition is acknowledged.
3. No SID document was included in the electronic submittal for review.
RESPONSE: The City’s website does not show any SID for this property.
Stormwater
4. The application provided storm drainage calculations, but no description of the proposed
system. A description is required. Note that the description should be for Phase I only. A
full review will be completed after the entire document is provided.
RESPONSE: The Stormwater Calculations have been updated with this submittal.
5. Provide an exhibit of the drainage plan. Include and label drainage basins and phases.
The drainage plan needs to provide the flow paths maximum distance traveled to verify
the time of concentration.
RESPONSE: The Stormwater Exhibit has been provided with this submittal.
6. Remove references to the Retention basin, because the pond discharges, it is a detention
basin.
RESPONSE: The basin is actually both a retention and detention basin to provide for
the 0.5” rainfall requirement.
7. Provide the 25 year storm design calculations for the proposed culvert and all inlets.
RESPONSE: 25-year storm design calculations are provided with this submittal.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 8 of 12
8. See the DSSP (Design Standards and Specifications Policy) for maximum pond depth
allowed.
RESPONSE: The proposed pond does exceed the 1.5’ depth on the north end. The
stormwater pond becomes shallower as it transitions to the south. A fence
could be installed to meet the requirement but we request that a pond 2.3’
deep is allowed as the pond has a shallow sloping bottom, which would allow
an “escape” in the event it is required. Please consider our request during the
review process. A second option would be to install additional underground
retention and raise the bottom of the basin but that would require substantial
additional costs that we feel would be unnecessary.
9. The Engineer is proposing stormwater facilities in locations known to have a high
groundwater table. The provided Geotechnical Summary states groundwater was
encountered at “4.0 to 6.0 feet on the west side”, but fails to specify the groundwater depth
for Test Pit #1, which is nearest to the location of the proposed stormwater facility. The
Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer confirm that groundwater will not
impact the function or maintenance of the proposed facility. Industry guidance
recommends a three-foot minimum separation from the bottom of the proposed facility to
the underlying groundwater table.
RESPONSE: On page 1 of the Allied Letter report, it is stated under Soil and
Groundwater Conditions, “Groundwater depths were at 4.0 to 6.0 feet on the
west side”, where the pond is proposed. The bottom of the proposed
stormwater pond is 3’ below ext’g ground. In addition, there is a stream
approximately 50’ west of the proposed pond and the water levels in the
stream were approximately 7’ below ext’g ground, indicating groundwater is
even deeper than estimated in the report.
10. The Engineer is proposing to locate sections of the storm drain under the site's curb and
gutter. The Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer relocate the storm drain as
its proposed location will make future spot repairs and replacements logistically
challenging and costly.
RESPONSE: The storm sewer is design to run between curb inlet/manholes.
Revising the design to move the piping away from the curbline would incur
substantially more cost in additional piping and manholes in the street. It
would also put the storm sewer closet to the sanitary sewer main which
creates new conflicts in the vent the sanitary ewer needs to be repaired. We
were not able to find any reference in the design standards not allowing this.
11. A geotechnical report is a summary and does not provide specific details for the various
test pits.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 9 of 12
RESPONSE: On page 1 of the Allied Letter report gives a brief description of the
soils.
12. The Montana Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual (Manual)
outlines environmental, design, construction, and maintenance considerations related to
stormwater infiltration basins (Section 5.2). The Manual is available at
www.bozeman.net/stormwater. At a minimum, the Stormwater Division recommends that
the Engineer consider the following:
Contributing Drainage Area
Soil Characteristics
Depth to Groundwater
Site Topography
Land Use and Considerations of Surrounding Area
Community and Environmental Considerations
Design Components:
i. Infiltration Cell Volume
ii. Inlet and Conveyance
iii. Pretreatment Forebay
iv. Infiltration Cell Shape
v. Infiltration Cell Bottom
vi. Outlet Structure (Optional)
vii. Embankment and Overflow Spillway
viii. Maintenance Access
ix. Flood Control
x. Vegetation
xi. Construction Considerations
xii. Maintenance
RESPONSE: A SWPPP Application is included in this resubmittal
13. The Stormwater Division recommends that the Engineer provide a maintenance plan that
includes, at a minimum, the following items:
Inspection protocols
Types and frequency of maintenance activities
Equipment access points and required apparatus types
Permitting and waste disposal considerations
Short, mid, and long-term budget estimates
Financing mechanisms
RESPONSE: A maintenance plan is included in the Stormwater Management Design
Report which is included in this resubmittal.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 10 of 12
Traffic Impact Study
14. Page 3, third paragraph, third line sentence should read “approximately 0.5 miles north of
Graf Street”.
15. Page 9: Justify the estimate that ten percent of trips would be pedestrian or bicycle trips.
Previous studies around the MSU campus show pedestrian and bike trips drop off
substantially greater than a half mile from campus.
RESPONSE: The TIS has been revised per the City review comments
Cover – Site Plan
16. Provide a sheet with a legend for line types and symbols.
RESPONSE: Legends have been added to the drawing set.
C1.0 Overall Site Plan
17. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan
difficult to read.
RESPONSE: The existing topo lines have been removed and are shown only on the
Grading Plan
18. Remove any linework (buildings and parking lot) from Phase II. This Plan should show
scope related only this Phase.
RESPONSE: The drawing set has been revised accordingly
19. Remove any linework for items that are existing that will be removed during demo (see
telephone pedestal in Arnold and tree along Arnold). Provide a separate demo sheet as
necessary.
RESPONSE: The drawing set has been revised accordingly
20. Explain in the narrative how snow will be stored within the detention basin. What type of
equipment will be used to move it off the road and parking areas over the curb and
sidewalk? Additionally, the maintaining entity for the property needs to make sure both
the inlet and outlet are not blocked.
RESPONSE: Adequate snow storage areas are shown on the site plan. In the event
that the city experiences a higher than normal snow year the owner will
contract to have the snow removed from the site as required to provide the
minimum parking spaces. We are unable to specify specifically what type of
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 11 of 12
snow removal equipment will be used as that will be determined by what
company the owner hires.
C1.1 Site Plan North
21. If Parking Lot A is planned to be split between two lots, mutual access agreements will
be required. An emergency access easement may be required as well.
RESPONSE: Subdivision of the lots are no longer proposed. All the development is
on one lot. A mutual access agreement is not required for one lot.
22. Verify the depth of cover for the proposed sewer main crossing under the creek.
RESPONSE: The depth of cover at the stream crossing is approx. 5’. Final design has
not yet been completed. The sewer design will be completed per the City and
DEQ requirements
23. Verify in which phase the existing culvert will be shortened.
RESPONSE: Since the initial submittal the Lantern Street culvert crossing has been
revised. The Corps of Engineers requested that the Lantern Street Culvert be
removed and a bridge installed to minimize the impacted for the Arnold Street
crossing impact. Permit for this work has been issued by the Corps and a copy
is included in this submittal.
C1.1 Site Plan East
24. BMC 38.410.070.B.2. Note for the Infrastructure Submittal that water service lines
cannot exceed 150 feet in length (see Club House).
RESPONSE: The longest proposed water service is 143’ to serve the Club House.
C1.3 Grading and Drainage Plan
25. Complete a final Site Grading and Drainage Plan to allow for a full review. See the
Design Standards and Specifications Policy Section II.B.
RESPONSE: The grading and drainage plan has been broken into 2 separate sheets
for better clarification.
26. Include sufficient spot elevation data and invert elevations.
RESPONSE: The grading and drainage plans have been finalized.
27. Include the maximum water surface elevation for the retention/detention basin.
Nexus Point Site Plan Review Narrative
Page 12 of 12
RESPONSE: The maximum stormwater pond elevation is the overflow elevation of
the flow control structure weir.
28. Label existing contours at the perimeter to ensure tie in to adjacent property/future
phases.
RESPONSE: The existing contours are shown substantially lighter than the
proposed. We have added labels calling out the contours elevations as
requested.
29. Provide the following on the plan:
a. Material/type of storm drain.
b. Detail for 48” Control Manhole. As shown, the Engineer’s design is likely to result
in short-circuiting.
c. Numerous pipe sections do not include pipe diameter, material, and slope
information.
RESPONSE: The additional information requested has been added to the Drainage
Plan sheet.
END OF NARRATIVE