Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 Response to Review Comments #2 8-21-20Page 1 of 34 19308 & 19309 “2131 Graf” Site Plan & Master Site Plan Response to May 2020 Resubmittal Review Comments 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: Condition Acknowledged. Section 3 – REQUIRED CODE CORRECTIONS Planning Division, Sarah Rosenberg, srosenberg@bozeman.net, 582-2297 Open Space 1. The following open space areas need to provide amenities per BMC 38.420.060.D. Staff recommends that in larger open space areas, in order to accommodate for the amount of residents living in the development, that at least four benches and one-two tables be provided: a. Area A – needs seating, paved path b. Area D – needs seating, some sort of other amenity c. Area F (it is labeled Area E on the landscape plan, please adjust) – needs seating, paved path RESPONSE: The open space areas have been updated to provide seating and additional amenities per the comments above. The updated open space amenities are best viewed on revised Plan Sheets C1.2, C1.3, & LS1.0 through LS1.3. 2. Need clarification for Area E open space. Will the soccer field be eliminated when phase 2 is constructed thus taking 2186 square feet off the open space for that area? This needs to be reflected in the open space calculations. How would this area change? RESPONSE: The proposed open space area E is a temporary soccer field that will be re-designed or re-configured at the construction of Phase 2. During Phase 2, the Building 17 clubhouse will be constructed, and the open space area E will be reconfigured with new amenities. The approximate 2,186 sf that will be lost due to the club house building is subtracted from the total open space per the Cover Page 2 of 34 Sheet and the “Open Space Calculations & Exhibit” document included herein. 3. BMC 38.520.060.B.1.c. The club house can only count for 50% towards open space. The fitness area can be the only portion of the club house that is counted towards open space. Adjust the open space table to reflect this. RESPONSE: BMC 38.520.060.B.1.d states “Common indoor recreation areas. Up to 50 percent of the required open space may be provided by common indoor recreation areas meeting the requirements of subsection B.4 below.” There are two proposed common indoor recreation areas, Building 1 Type E Club House and Building 17 Club House. Building 1 will be constructed with Phase 1, and Building 17 will be constructed with Phase 2. The Building 1 clubhouse includes a common fitness area that satisfies section B.4 “indoor recreational areas”. The fitness area includes a workout room, circulation area, and bathrooms which total to 1,182 sf. The future Building 17 clubhouse is estimated to have 4,332 sf of community indoor recreational areas. The Open Space Table on the Cover Sheet and the “Open Space Calculations & Exhibit” document included herein have been updated to reflect this. 4. BMC 38.520.060.B.3. Split up the open space calculations by building. The decks on Building A do not qualify for open space as a dimension is less than 6 feet. RESPONSE: The “Open Space Calculations & Exhibit” document included herein splits the open space calculations out by building. The decks on Building A have been enlarged to qualify for open space. The Plan Sets and Open Space Calculations have been updated to reflect this. 5. BMC 38.410.060.C. The following corrections are needed on the easements: a. The City Manager does not need to attest to his own signature (first three easements) b. The footer states Flanders Mill c. The corporate entity is listed as Graf Street Apartments, LLC and Graf Apartments, LLC. Are these separate entities granting the easements? Correct if they are the same. Page 3 of 34 d. On the Public Trail Corridor Easement, the warranty uses the pronoun “he”. Switch to “It” as it refers to a corporation, not a person. e. Several Exhibit A to various easements are missing: Public street and utility easement, public trail corridor easement, sewer and water pipeline and access easement. Include those with each easement. f. Fill in Gallatin County on the first main paragraph of the Northwestern Utility Easement. RESPONSE: The corrections have been made on the easement documents. Revised easement documents have been included herein. Block Frontage 1. BMC 38.510.030.J. Special residential block frontage applies to any residences with ground floor living spaces. The following buildings do not meet this standard: a. Building 2 – West elevation b. Building 4 – South elevation c. Building 6 – North elevation d. Building 7 – North elevation e. Building 8 – North elevation f. Building 9 – West elevation RESPONSE: The Elevations on Sheets A7 and A8 have been revised to show the ground level patios raised 1-ft above grade to be consistent with the special residential block frontage requirements in the code. In addition, the civil engineering grading plans address the associated grade change from the patios to the adjacent ground surface. Site Design 1. BMC 38.520.070. Based on the size of the mechanical screening, the DRC is not in support of the landscaping screening and recommends integrating it into the building’s architecture or putting a structural screen around it. RESPONSE: Per City of Bozeman development code, landscaping screening is allowed for screening of mechanical equipment. Subsequent conversations with Sarah Rosenburg indicated that landscaping screening in these locations could be appropriate. In Page 4 of 34 order to provide immediate mitigation, the developer will install minimum 6-ft tall coniferous shrubs or trees in front of the utility meter locations. Screening exhibits are shown on Details 16-20 on Sheet LS3.1. 2. The trees on the southwestern portion of the property should be staggered similarly to the trees along the rest of the pathway. RESPONSE: The trees in this area has been revised to be staggered. Please see sheet LS1.1 for the modifications. Park Plan 1. Provide bicycle parking adjacent and/or within the park. RESPONSE: Bicycle parking has been added adjacent to the park along S 21st Ave. There is already bicycle parking centrally located within the North Lantern Park. Building Design 1. BMC 38.520.070 location and design of service areas and equipment. The proposed screening solution does not minimize adverse visual impacts of the utility meters and cabinets. RESPONSE: Per City of Bozeman development code, landscaping screening is allowed for screening of mechanical equipment. Subsequent conversations with Sarah Rosenburg indicated that landscaping screening in these locations could be appropriate. In order to provide immediate mitigation, the developer will install minimum 6-ft tall coniferous shrubs or trees in front of the utility meter locations. Screening exhibits are shown on Details 16-20 on Sheet LS3.1. 2. Building A: a. BMC 38.530.070. The DRC recommends continuing the windows on the first floor along the trail frontage elevation. There is concern that the choice of landscaping to mitigate for the blank wall will not be successful with the deck and second floor overhang. More consideration and design efforts should be taken to the elevation as it is a prominent façade along Graf Street and the trail corridor. RESPONSE: Additional windows have been added on the rear elevation of the Type A Building. Please see Elevation #4 on Sheet A6 The windows have been placed to meet the blank wall requirements in the City of Bozeman Development Code. Page 5 of 34 b. A 3 foot deep weather protection is required over the entrance on the parking lot elevation. RESPONSE: A 3’ deep weather protection has been added on the Type A Building. Please see Elevations on Sheet A6 c. BMC 38.520.040.B. The entrance to this building does not meet pedestrian connection to a sidewalk. RESPONSE: Entrance to the building is provided by the asphalt parking lot. d. The doors are missing on rear elevation onto the deck. RESPONSE: Doors have been added to the elevations. Please see Sheet A6 Lighting 1. S1 is not a full cutoff light. The DRC recommends using S2 for building illumination. RESPONSE: All buildings mounted lighting has been updated to the S2 fixture, which is a full cutoff fixture. The electric site plan and photometric plan have been updated. Please see revised sheets E- 1.00 – E-1.02. General Comments 1. Ensure that the maintenance building is labeled Type D on the site plans RESPONSE: The Maintenance building has been labeled Type D on the updated Site Plans. 2. Label mail kiosk building floor plan as club house so that it matches the rest of the plans. Also, ensure that the direction of the floor plan matches up with how it is laid out on the site plan. RESPONSE: The clubhouse floor plan has been updated. Please see sheet A4. Furthermore, it is has been verified that the clubhouse has been oriented correctly on the site plan. 3. Please provide additional perspectives of what the buildings look like from the main road and trail rather than just the parking lot. The overall view is beneficial but it would be advised to provide more of the site. Also, ensure that the landscaping matching on the renderings as it is proposed on the landscape plan, especially how it would impact the blank wall. RESPONSE: Applicant has attempted to provide detailed elevations and has provided a material board indicating finishes per City of Page 6 of 34 Bozeman requirements. The purpose of the renderings is to show generally the standard of quality and general look of the buildings that will be used when developing this site. In addition, detailed landscaping plans have shown which indicate planting materials, density, etc. Furthermore, additional detail has been provided for landscaping screening of utility infrastructure. Applicant believes adequate detail has been provided to evaluate the application based on the detailed elevations and landscaping plans provided. Engineering Division; Lance LeHigh, llehigh@bozeman.net, 582-2284  See attached comments Parks Department; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908  Please revise “23 Required Parkland Summary 5-27-20.pdf” and “C0.0 Site Plan Cover Sheet 5-15-20”. CILP owed for 3.6 acres of parkland (156,816 sf) at $1.60 psf is $250,905.60 RESPONSE: The “Required Parkland Summary” and Parkland Tracking Table on the cover sheet have been updated, see the updated items.  “24 Lantern Park Development and Maintenance Agreement 5-27-20” will need edits due to the passing of the Parks and Trails District prior to final park acceptance by the City. RESPONSE: The Park District has been contacted regarding the edits. However, no edits were provided at the time of this re- submittal. The edited agreement will be provided as soon as it is available.  A Park easement is required for Lantern Park. It is preferred that one easement is coordinated with the adjacent development if possible. RESPONSE: A park easement has been included with this resubmittal. The Park easement with the adjacent development was not able to be combined with the easement for this project because of the different timing between the approvals of the two projects.  The draft Trail easement provided notes “Flanders Mill” in the footnotes. RESPONSE: The easement has been corrected to reflect the correct project name. Fire Department; Scott Mueller, smueller@bozeman.net, 406-582-2353  Fire hydrant locations/fire lanes/turning radii/dead end roads are acceptable as proposed Page 7 of 34 RESPONSE: Acknowledged.  Concerns with addressing if all structures are sub’s of 2131 Graf Street. If so, monument signage should be provided at entrances with multiple identifications of each structure. Contact to clarify. RESPONSE: The Site Plan drawings have been updated to show the individual addresses of the buildings. No building will have the same address. Furthermore, each building will have address signing with appropriate illumination on multiple building faces. Applicant will work with Mr. Mueller on final building signage locations prior to submittal of construction plans for building permit review. Solid Waste Division; Russ Ward, rward@bozeman.net, 406-582-3235  The refuse enclosure between building 8 and 9 needs to show a 50 foot straight approach with no parking in the 50 foot. The details for the enclosure do not show how wide the opening is. RESPONSE: The refuse enclosure details have been updated to show the opening width, refer to updated sheet A5. A 50’ approach with no parking or curb has been provided for the refuse enclosure between building 8 and 9, refer to the thin dashed line shown from the front of the enclosure on Sheet C1.3. Future Impact Fees - Please note that future building permit applications will require payment of the required transportation, water, sewer and fire impact fees according to the City of Bozeman adopted impact fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. If you desire an estimate of the required impact fees according to current rates please contact the Department of Community Development and/or visit.’ RESPONSE: Acknowledged Note: During preparation of the staff report, additional conditions of approval may be recommended based on comments and recommendations provided by other applicable review agencies involved with the review of the project. RESPONSE: Acknowledged Page 8 of 34 ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Lance LeHigh, llehigh@bozeman.net, 582-2284 General 1. The name “Icon Apartment Homes at 2131 Graf (previously named Graf Street Apts) Multi Unit Household Residential Development” could be confused with the Icon Apartments at Ferguson Farm. The name needs to be changed to alleviate the possibility of confusion during emergency situations prior to Master Site Plan Approval. a. The Gallatin County Dispatch Supervisor, head of all 911 calls in the County has relayed that people tend to use the apartment name when they call and this could be a huge liability to them. RESPONSE: The name of the development has been changed to simply “2131 Graf”. All project documentation, future signage, marketing, etc. will reflect this name. Easements 1. The applicant must review and provide clearly labeled easement documents that meet City standards prior to Master Site Plan Approval. a. The easements that were provided in the May 12, 2020 submittal reference the Flanders Mill Apartment Development, lack the proper exhibits, and are missing required information for a formal review. RESPONSE: The easement documents have been updated to correct the references, include exhibits, and provide required information for review. Please refer to the updated easement documents included herein. 2. BMC 38.410.060 Easements – (Private Utilities). The applicant must provide a ten (10) foot utility easement (power, gas, communication, etc.) along the developments property frontage prior to Master Site Plan Approval. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a utility easement template. RESPONSE: Easement documents for private utilities have been included herein. 3. BMC 38.410.060 (C) (1) Easements – (Water and Sewer). The applicant must provide a thirty (30) foot public utility easement to accommodate both water and sewer mains prior to Master Site Plan Page 9 of 34 Approval. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a utility easement template. RESPONSE: Easement documents for public water and sewer have been included herein. 4. BMC 38.410.060 (C) (1) Easements – (Trail Section). The applicant must provide a thirty (30) foot trail corridor easement to accommodate the proposed trail sections prior to Master Site Plan Approval. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a utility easement template. RESPONSE: Easement documents for the public trail sections have been included herein. 5. BMC 38.410.060 Easements – (Lantern Drive). The applicant must provide a thirty (30) foot public street and utility easement or dedicate Right-of-Way prior to Master Site Plan Approval. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a public street and utility easement template. RESPONSE: Easements for lantern drive have been included herein. 6. BMC 38.410.060 Easements – (South 21st Avenue). The applicant must provide a sixty (60) foot public street and utility easement or dedicate Right-of-Way prior to Master Site Plan Approval. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a public street and utility easement template. RESPONSE: Easements for S 21st Ave have been provided herein. 7. BMC 38.410.100 (A) (e) (3) Watercourse Setback –Streets, sidewalks, utility lines or similar public construction may be permitted within all zones for the purpose of crossing a watercourse or protecting public health and safety. a. The 10 foot utility easement located off of Graf Street serving building #15 must be moved to satisfy Zone 2 watercourse setback requirements prior to Master Site Plan Approval. Page 10 of 34 RESPONSE: The utility easement has been relocated out of the watercourse setbacks, refer to updated sheet C0.2 included herein. 8. Park Easements – The applicant is showing a number of proposed park easements. The applicant must coordinate with the City’s Parks department (Addi Jadin) to ensure the correct easements have been created and filed prior to Master Site Plan Approval. A copy of the park easements must be provided to engineering. RESPONSE: Easement documents for the proposed parks have been included herein. Concurrent Construction 1. BMC 38.270.030 (C) (1) Completion of improvements – Any required on-site extensions of water mains, sewer mains or streets to be dedicated to the public must be located entirely within publicly held easements or rights-of-way; must serve only a single lot; are the subject of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the city upon completion of the project; the development is under the control of a single developer who must retain control of the entire project until final completion; all work is under the supervision of a single general contractor; and no subdivision of land is involved; a. Off-site improvements of 19th Ave are being completed by a separate developer (Nexus Point). Those improvements cannot be completed concurrently with this project and must be completed prior to Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval’ the request for concurrent construction is approved upon formal acceptance of the 19th Street improvements by the City’s engineering department. RESPONSE: The offsite improvements to S 19th Ave are scheduled for final completion in the Fall of 2020. However, we request Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval prior to completion of offsite improvements to S 19th Ave have been formally accepted by the City. If not improved with the Nexus project, these improvements would have to be built with this Project. Thus, it would be appropriate to grant Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval prior to formal acceptance of the off-site infrastructure by the City. The applicant proposes that no certificate of occupancies for any buildings associated with Page 11 of 34 the Phase I site plan will be allowed until the completion and acceptance of South 19th Avenue improvements. This would guarantee that all required improvements are completed before anyone could permanently occupy the site. b. Sheet C0.1 of the Construction Management Plan states that the entire section of Lantern Drive will be constructed with the Nexus Point Development. The off-site portion of Lantern Drive must be completed prior to Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval; the request for concurrent construction is approved upon formal acceptance of the Lantern Street improvements by the City’s engineering department. RESPONSE: The offsite improvements to Lantern Drive are to be constructed prior to winter of 2020. However, we request Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval prior to completion of offsite improvements to lantern drive have been formally accepted by the City. If not improved with the Nexus project, these improvements would have to be built with this Project. Thus, it would be appropriate to grant Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval prior to formal acceptance of the off-site infrastructure by the City. The applicant proposes that no certificate of occupancies for any buildings associated with the Phase I site plan will be allowed until the completion and acceptance of South 19th Avenue improvements. This would guarantee that all required improvements are completed before anyone could permanently occupy the site. 2. BMC 38.270.030 (C) Completion of improvements - The applicant has requested concurrent construction for the public infrastructure associated with Phase 1 of the development. Prior to Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval, the request for concurrent construction is approved contingent upon the following items: i. Plan and Specification approval from the City and State. ii. Submittal of an executed original conditional irrevocable offer of dedication, please contact the Engineering Department (Lance Lehigh) to receive a copy of this document if needed. Page 12 of 34 iii. Written approval from the fire department for concurrent construction. iv. Concurrent Construction Phasing Plan approval from the City. RESPONSE: The above items will be provided prior to construction. Public Infrastructure associated with the project includes the following: a. Water and Sewer Improvements for the entire development. b. Street Improvements i. Lantern Street (Constructed to a Local Standard) ii. 21st Street (Constructed to a local standard) All water mains, sewer mains and streets installed and constructed as part of this development must meet the following requirements: (1) All on-site extensions of water mains, sewer mains and streets will be dedicated to the public and will be located entirely within publicly held easements; will serve only a single lot; are the subject of an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City upon completion of the project; the development is under the control of a single developer who will retain control of the entire project until final completion; and all work will be under the supervision of a single general contractor; Water and Sewer Improvements must be completed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for Building #1 (Phase I). RESPONSE: Applicant acknowledges this condition. The current construction plan is based on the noted conditions. Applicant acknowledges that no certificate of occupancies for any building will be given until all public improvements are complete and accepted by the City. (2) The construction sequencing and phasing will provide adequate fire protection and access during building construction (e.g. hydrant location and multiple points of access); and RESPONSE: Applicant acknowledges this condition. Hydrants are available near Lantern Drive and all-weather access roads will be provided. (3) Final infrastructure construction must be formally accepted by the City’s engineering department, and the state department of environmental Page 13 of 34 quality, when applicable, prior to issuance of any building permit for the development; and RESPONSE: This particular requirement wouldn’t allow for concurrent construction as all improvements would need to be constructed prior to any vertical construction. The applicant respectfully requests that final infrastructure construction be accepted by the city prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, not prior to issuance of building permit. (4) The required on-site street improvements (Lantern Street, and 21st Street) must be completed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for Building #1 (Phase I). RESPONSE: Applicant acknowledges this requirement. The construction of the development will be phased according to the City approved concurrent construction phasing plan. Deviations from the approved concurrent construction phasing plan will require a MOD application from the applicant. Unapproved changes could result in the City issuing an immediate stop work order. RESPONSE: Applicant acknowledges this requirement. Paybacks 1. The project falls in the “Meadow Creek signal, water, and sewer Payback” area. The applicant must pay payback fees prior to Master Site Plan approval. The amounts are determined by the City of Bozeman Engineering Department. Estimated fees are provided below: a. Meadow Creek Sewer - $47,123.86 b. Meadow Creek Water (24”) - $27,871.73 c. Meadow Creek Water (16”) - $18,511.86 d. Meadow Creek Signal (Stucky/19th) - $20,607.30 e. Meadow Creek Signal (Graf/19th) - $44,811.20 RESPONSE: Applicant acknowledges the requirement for the Meadow Creek payback districts. Applicant requests that proportionate share costs be paid with Phase I based on Phase I development area in relation to the entire site area and the remainder of fees be paid with future developments of the site. Page 14 of 34 2. If a payback district is created for street improvements associated with the Nexus Point development, the Graf developer must pay the associated fees prior to Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: Applicant requests that if a payback district is created for street improvements associated with the Nexus Point development that benefit this property, the payback for such improvements required by this property is paid at the time of paying building permit fees. Water Rights 1. Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.410.130 - The applicant has indicated a willingness to participate in a cash-in-lieu water rights (CILWR) reduction offered by the City by installing certain high-efficiency toilets, showerheads, and clothes washers. Prior to the Phase 1 Site Plan and Master Site Plan Approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement setting forth terms, conditions, and limitations of CILWR reduction. The draft agreement provided in the Phase 1 site plan materials requires revision prior to gathering signatures. The condition to enter into the agreement must first be satisfied by the Master Site Plan application. Once completed, the CILWR agreement must be provided with the Phase 1 site plan materials. RESPONSE: The revised CILWR agreement has been included herein. Stormwater 1. Stormwater Management Report (May 2020) Appendix C Page 15 – The inlet capacity calculations for inlets on grade are labeled drainage basin 5.0 and 5.1, however these inlets cannot be found on the drainage plan. Storm Drain Manholes (SDMH) 1 and 2 are labeled and have correct elevations. Revise the report to show the correct information prior to Master Site Plan approval. RESPONSE: The revised stormwater report has been included herein. 2. Stormwater Management Report (May 2020) Appendix D Page 15 – The stormwater retention calculations, specifically the Basin Area (ft2), do Page 15 of 34 not match sheet SD1.1. For example, on sheet SD1.1 Basin 1 has an area of 160,623 ft2, however the calculations show 153,480 ft2. In addition on sheet SD1.1 Basin 2 has an area of 15,581 ft2, however the calculations show 62,384 ft2. In addition, the applicant also needs to verify the Basin # in Appendix D. For instance, there are two stormwater and retention basin calculation sheets for Basin 3. Revise the report to show the correct calculations prior to Master Site Plan approval. RESPONSE: The revised stormwater report has been included herein. 3. Building Number 6, which is part of the proposed Phase 1 site development, is located in drainage Basin 7. A gravel infiltration swale is proposed to handle future runoff from Basin 7, however, the proposed contours do not show that stormwater generated in Basin 7 can adequately reach the gravel swale. The engineer needs to provide additional justification or add the infrastructure to properly drain Basin 7 prior to Phase 1 Site Plan and Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: The revised stormwater report has been included herein. The gravel swale has been revised to a buried gravel infiltration system. The contours have been revised to flow to the infiltration system area drains. 4. Basin 8, which is part of a future phase of the development, shows a 3’ x 30’ paver system located in open space. Verify that this is the correct stormwater BMP or if a gravel infiltration swale was intended prior to Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: The proposed infiltration system for Basin 8 is the pervious pavers. This is a future open space area that will likely have concrete pathways. If necessary, during future site plan application, the open space area design may require a buried infiltration system instead of the pervious pavers. 5. Detail C2.2. A concrete Swale is shown, however, it is unclear if this BMP is utilized. Revise the detail sheet or clearly call out where concrete swale is used on sheets C1.5 and C1.6 prior to Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: The concrete swale detail has been renamed curb chase. The locations are called out on revised Sheet C1.5 & C1.6. Page 16 of 34 6. The Overall Drainage Plan (Sheet C0.5) does not include sufficient spot elevation data. Information that is contained on sheets C1.5 and C1.6 in the stormwater report, must be included with the Master Site Plan sheets prior to Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: The intent of Sheet C0.5 is to provide overall grading for the Master Site Plan. It is not desired to have an enormous amount of detail or spot grades on this sheet. Sheets C1.5 & C1.6 are intended to provide detailed information for the stormwater facilities. These sheets have been included in the Master Site Plan. Sheets C1.7 & C1.8 provide detailed spot grades for Phase 1 and have been included in the stormwater report. Future phase spot grades will be provided with future site plan application(s) for the future phase. 7. Include Sheet C0.5 from the plans in the stormwater report. Clearly label all infrastructure details (i.e. curb chases, stormwater pavers, swales, valley gutters, etc.) prior to Master Site Plan Approval (See Figure Below). RESPONSE: Sheet C0.5 has been added to the drainage report. However, the intent of C0.5, Overall Grading Plan, is to provide the master site plan overall grading, not a detailed description of all stormwater infrastructure or spot grades. All stormwater infrastructure facilities have been identified on revised sheets C1.5 & C1.6, included in the stormwater report. Page 17 of 34 8. Basin 5, which is part of a future phase of the development, shows a 30’ x 50’ paver system located along with a concrete valley gutter and curb chase (See Figure Below). The emergency overflow drains into open space but does not have a clear downslope drainage facility. Provide additional information on how the facility will perform and that downstream runoff will not impact the development or trail system prior to Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: The proposed emergency overflow is the grass swale and 10’ concrete sidewalk system. Runoff will flow north to Lantern Drive via the sidewalk and swale. This will limit flood damage to any structures or adjacent properties. The contours on the overall grading plan C0.5 have been updated to reflect this. 9. DSSP Section II (B) (3) Basin Location – Public parkland shall not be used for storm water detention or retention ponds unless approved by the Superintendent of Facilities and Lands. a. The applicant must provide written approval that the proposed Contech Perforated CMP underground system can be located in the public park prior to Phase 1 and Master Site Plan Approval. Page 18 of 34 RESPONSE: Written approval from the Parks Department has been requested. However, it is not available at the time of this re-submittal. Written approval will be provided as soon as it is obtained. 10. The stormwater maintenance plan needs to clearly define the responsible party for operation and maintenance of facilities. a. The applicant must clearly list the facilities that will be maintained by the responsible party as well as cite figures and the stormwater report so the entity can locate these stormwater features. RESPONSE: The stormwater maintenance plan has been updated to satisfy the above requirement. 11. BMC 38.410.080 and 40.04.500.A Requirement to control and reduce stormwater pollutants – The applicant provided a geotechnical investigation report dated March 2019 as well as an excerpt showing the various test pit locations for the subject property. However, at the time of the geotechnical investigation groundwater levels are typically at their seasonal low. The report does discuss ground water level variations ranging from 6.7 to 9.5 feet below the existing surface encountered in the exploratory test pits, but does not explicitly provide any information on seasonally high groundwater levels. High groundwater levels have been observed in the South Bridge subdivision, which is located directly south of the proposed development. Which is currently observed in the South Bridge subdivision (located directly south of the proposed development). Modify the stormwater report to reference key information from the geotechnical investigation (i.e. page numbers, exhibits, test pit numbers, etc.) that was used to certify the proposed stormwater facilities. This is a critical detail for the Contech underground stormwater retention system as well as the types of foundations that the City will allow in the development (i.e. crawl space, slab on grade). The certifying engineer must show that the proposed underground stormwater system functions as designed. Stormwater storage that extends below the seasonal high groundwater elevation does not meet the City’s storage requirement. The stormwater report must be updated to reflect these requested changes prior to Master Site Plan Approval. Page 19 of 34 RESPONSE: The Stormwater Report has been updated to include seasonal groundwater monitoring measurements and a monitoring well location map. The groundwater measurements were utilized to estimate the seasonal high groundwater at the proposed infiltrator locations via the slope or surface of groundwater between the monitoring wells. Some of the infiltration systems were adjusted to meet the City’s storage requirement. Please refer to the updated Stormwater Report. Water & Wastewater 1. Sheet C0.2 Overall Utility Plan – The overall utility plan does not show the individual buildings. Please add the individual buildings, slightly faded so the reviewer can determine if adequate water and sewer services are provided to the buildings prior to Master Site Plan Approval. a. Buildings 14 and 15, which are shown as a future phase of the development, do not show any sanitary sewer service lines in the overall utility plan, but show up on the overall grading plan. Revise to show the mains and services for the proposed development to be shown consistently across the set, as applicable. Make sure the proposed services off of Graf Street are shown in the utility plan. RESPONSE: Sheet C0.2 has been revised to show the sewer services. 2. Sheet C0.2 Overall Utility Plan – The overall utility plan states “All water and sewer mains required for the development are to be constructed with Phase 1”. However, services that connect future buildings in Graf Street are not shown. Are the future services that connect buildings Graf Street water and sewer planning to be installed and stubbed as part of Phase 1? The overall utility plan needs to clearly show all proposed mains and services prior to Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: Water and sewer services within the public 30’ utility easements, lantern drive, and S 21st Ave will be stubbed 8’ past the easement or property line. Water and sewer services that require cutting into Graf St will be constructed during future phases after future Site Plan approval. This has been clarified on Sheet C0.2. Page 20 of 34 3. The engineer must separate the wastewater flows to Graf and Lantern drive prior Master Site Plan Approval. Engineering does not have adequate information to evaluate local and downstream sewer capacity. RESPONSE: The Wastewater Design Report has been revised to provide estimates of downstream flows to Graf St. The estimated average daily flow rate into Graf St is 12,019 gpd or 0.02 cfs, and the peak flow rate is 45,792 gpd or 0.07 cfs. Traffic Impact Study & Transportation 1. The applicant must provide an updated Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prior to Master Site Plan Approval. a. The applicant provided TIS review comments which the City Engineering department reviewed and agreed with. The applicant will need to provide an updated final TIS. RESPONSE: The Updated Final TIS that reflects the TIS review comment changes is included in this resubmittal. 2. The proposed transportation network shows a future intersection at Arnold and Discovery Drive. Arnold will be a future City owned and maintained local street, while Discovery Drive will remain in the county. The applicant must provide supporting documentation that the applicant and county are coordinating on the future intersection and that the tie-in is acceptable with the County prior to Master Site Plan Approval. RESPONSE: The Nexus Point development to the north is completing Arnold St and it is not a part of this project. The signed easement for the Arnold St public roadway on Discovery Drive has been included herein. 3. BMC 38.400.090 (D) (2) Access - Table 38.400.090-1 provides the minimum distance between public and/or private accesses and intersections. a. The applicant requested a drive access modification citing BMC 38.400.090 (H) (3), to allow the proposed (north-south) intersection of South 21st Avenue and the drive access to Hope Lutheran church to be slightly off alignment. The engineering department Page 21 of 34 reviewed the requested modification as well as the applicant’s responses for items a-f, as cited in BMC 38.400.090 (H) (3). Engineering opposes the proposed intersection due to safety concerns. The proposed intersection creates a potential unsafe left hand turning movement onto Graf (See Figure below). The applicant must make one of the following changes prior to Master Site Plan Approval: i. Change the alignment of South 21st Avenue to align with the Hope Lutheran Access. ii. Shift the South 21st Avenue Access to meet BMC 38.400.090 (D) (2) Access requirements. iii. Work with Hope Lutheran to shift their access to align with South 21st Avenue. RESPONSE: The alignment of S 21st Ave has been shifted to align with the Hope Lutheran Driveway. All plan sheets have been updated to reflect this. Lighting 1. (DSSP) Section XII Lighting Design Criteria - Designers shall submit to the City a calculation summary table for each calculation grid and City of Bozeman Standard Specifications for Lighting Materials and Installation Revision March 2020 include the average illuminance or luminance, Page 22 of 34 maximum illuminance or luminance, minimum illuminance or luminance, and Avg:Min ratio. Calculated values may vary from criteria by no more than 10% above or below. a. The electrical site photometric sheet shows four (4) proposed street lights on the north side of Graf Street, in which some areas have zero luminance. Include the requested DSSP Section XII information and show how Table B: New Construction Lighting Design Guidance. RESPONSE: Additional street lights have been added on Graf Street to comply with Section XII Lighting Design Criteria. In addition, a calculation summary table for each calculation grid has been added to Sheet E-1.01. Page 23 of 34 PHASE 1 SITE PLAN ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Transportation 1. BMC 38.540.020 (M) Stall, aisle and driveway design -The applicant must identify snow storage areas on the Site Plan for the parking areas. Snow removal storage areas must be sufficient to store snow accumulation on-site. Such areas shall not cause unsafe ingress/egress to the parking areas, shall not cause snow to be deposited on public rights- of-way, shall not include areas provided for required parking access and spaces, and shall not be placed in such a manner as to damage landscaping. a. Sheet C1.1 and C1.3 show a total of four proposed snow storage areas. A rough calculation of Phase 1 – West shows approximately 1.5 percent of the total impervious area would be available for snow storage (see figure below). The applicant must provide detailed justification that adequate snow storage is available prior to Phase 1 Site Plan Approval. Page 24 of 34 RESPONSE: Additional snow storage areas have been identified on Sheet C1.1 & C1.3 and throughout the plan set. The Phase 1 snow storage area square footage increased by a factor of 6. Approximately 6,000 sf of snow storage area is provided in Phase 1. In the event that the areas shown on the plan cannot store the snow, the excess snow will be hauled off site. Stormwater 1. BMC 40.04.500 (A) Requirement to control and reduce stormwater pollutants - A stormwater drainage/treatment grading plan and maintenance plan for a system designed to treat the first 0.5 inch of stormwater to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved with the Site Plan application. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), storm water detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations, and discharge structure details), storm water discharge destination, and a storm water maintenance plan. The approved stormwater maintenance plan must be incorporated into the Owners Association Documents and a copy must be submitted prior to Site Plan approval. a. The proposed Contech underground storage system is located in a public park and will require vehicular access for future maintenance (see figure below). Currently, there is no proposed access road that would allow a large truck the ability to maintain the feature without destroying the proposed landscaping, curbing, and sidewalk. The applicant must provide an access route to for future maintenance activities prior to Phase 1 Site Plan Approval. Page 25 of 34 RESPONSE: A paved access road has been provided and is shown on the updated plan and park sheets. The following comments have been addressed by the applicant, and refer to the August 15, 2019 City of Bozeman Engineering Comments Memo. Previous comments that have been addressed are shown below for tracking purposes and do not require an additional response from the applicant. General 1. City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy (DSSP) Section I.D.1 Plan Requirements. The overall plan set has a tremendous amount of information being conveyed. A separate sheet showing existing and proposed utilities along with easements needs to be provided in order to provide comment. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant added additional sheets. Page 26 of 34 i. Traffic impact study (TIS) comments will need to be addressed before the Concurrent Construction Request will be reviewed. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant updated the TIS to the point engineering could start the concurrent construction review process. Stormwater DSSP Section II. Drainage Policy 1. The application provided storm drainage calculations for Phase 1 only. Calculations for the entire master site plans needs to be provided along with a description of the proposed system. Note that the description should be for Phase I only. A full review will be completed after the entire document is provided. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has provided calculation for the full master site plan. 2. The stormwater drainage exhibit 05-17-19 shows the overall different stormwater subcatchments for Phase I only and does not include the identification and square foot coverage of the various proposed developed ground surfaces (i.e. impervious, landscape). The entire site plan needs to be identified to justify post-development runoff calculations. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has provided calculations along with square foot coverage of the various BMPS for the full master site plan as well as Phase 1. 3. There are a number of storm drains shown on the exhibit. Provide calculations showing how proposed storm drains meet the standards in DSSP Section II.A.3. Addressed 7/1 – Updated calculations showing how drains, conveyance, and infiltration facilities function per code. 4. The storm drainage plan needs to describe how stormwater will reach its ultimate destination (i.e. flow paths). For example, stormwater runoff flowing from the western corner of building 5 and eastern corner of building 3 (Basin A) runs directly into a curbed parking area (Reference figure markup provided below). Page 27 of 34 Addressed 7/1 – Runoff from the roofs flows onto the finish grade near the building via gutters and downspouts, then sheet flows over landscaped areas and sidewalks into curb and gutter, or drainage swale, and then flows through the parking lot, or public roadway easement, via sheet flow or curb and gutter flow, through sidewalk chases and curb chases as needed, and into the proposed retention and infiltration facilities. The flowpath is determined by the provided finish grade contours, swale locations, curb and gutter locations, sidewalk chase or curb chase locations, and locations of inlets or infiltration and retention facilities. 5. A storm drainage facilities maintenance plan is required. Plan requirements are provided in DSSP Section II.B.5.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 City’s 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 Page 28 of 34  Community and Environmental Considerations  Design Components Considerations include the following: o Infiltration Cell Volume o Inlet and Conveyance o Pretreatment Forebay o Infiltration Cell Shape o Infiltration Cell Bottom o Outlet Structure (Optional) o Embankment and Overflow Spillway o Maintenance Access o Flood Control o Vegetation o Construction Considerations o Maintenance 6. The proposed infiltration stormwater facilities are in locations known to have a high groundwater table. The provided Geotechnical Report dated 3-12-19 states that groundwater was encountered from 6.7 to 9.5 feet below existing site grades and that seasonal fluctuations have not been evaluated which may result in groundwater being encountered at shallower depths. A total of four groundwater monitoring wells were installed on-site to evaluate seasonal fluctuations. 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. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has provided a maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater features that meet manufacturer specifications for O&M. Traffic Impact Study & Transportation 1. Site Plan: South 21st Ave is shown not being completed to the north on the overall site plan. However, on the Nexus Point site plan South 21st Ave is shown connected and completed. Please provide clarity on which development is responsible for completing South 21st street to the North. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant provided clarity on which development (Nexus Point). 2. Page 3: third paragraph, third line sentence should read “approximately 0.5 miles north of Graf Street”. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant will revise the TIS accordingly. Page 29 of 34 3. 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. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant will revise the TIS accordingly. Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. 4. Page 9: It was assumed that approximately five percent of the trips within the proposed development would be Internal Capture Trips. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 1 defines multi-use development ranging in size from 100,000 sq.ft to 2 million sq.ft. for Internal Trip Capture, and specifically excludes this type of development. Remove the internal capture rate from the analysis or provide justification on the number of Internal Trips provided in Table 2. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant will revise the TIS accordingly. Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. 5. Page 12: Provide an explanation on the distributions assumed in Figure 3. The distribution appears to estimate 56 percent of the traffic will not head towards Montana State University (i.e. 43 percent north on S 19th Ave, 1 percent east on Kagy Blvd, 4 percent east on Stucky Rd, and 8 percent south on S 19th Ave.) Addressed 7/1 – The applicant will revise the TIS accordingly. 6. Page 12: Provide an explanation on the distributions assumed in Figure 3. The distribution appears to estimate 68 percent of the traffic leaving both Nexus Point and Graf Street Apartments will complete an unprotected left via Arnold Street onto S 19th Ave (Reference figure markup provided below). 1 (2012). Trip Generation Manual: User's Guide and Handbook (pg 85) (9th ed., Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Page 30 of 34 Page 12: Provide an explanation on why the intersection at Discovery Drive and Arnold Street is not shown in the trip distribution calculations (Reference figure markup provided below). Page 31 of 34 Addressed 7/1 – Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. 7. Page 13: The Site Traffic Assignment section states the following: “It is also assumed that the Campus Boulevard extension west to S 11th Avenue and related improvements to the traffic signal at Stucky Road and S 19th Avenue will be in-place prior to any development within the study site.” Future road improvements cannot be assumed until final plat has been approved. Revise the existing analysis to reflect this condition. Addressed 7/1 – Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. 8. Page 15: Figure 5 Full Development Traffic Plus Existing Street System Volumes shows 88 peak hour unprotected left-hand turns leaving both Nexus Point and the Graf Street Apartments. However, Table 3 Existing Plus Site Peak AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary doesn’t seem to reflect the peak hour analysis at the S 19th & Arnold Street intersection correctly. For instance, the Max Queue for the AM traffic load is 1 with a 14.3 second delay. Revise this table accordingly. Addressed 7/1 – Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. 9. Page 17: Table 3 Existing Plus Site Peak AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary shows an east bound movement and a north bound movement on S 19th Ave and Arnold Street. Explain these movements relative to Figure 5. Addressed 7/1 – Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. 10. Page 19: The Future Traffic Volumes section states the following: “Traffic projections for future conditions were developed by incorporating all of the area’s planned development including all in-process platting and in-fill of platted subdivisions. Various design studies were also input to the projections including the Kagy Boulevard improvements; the Campus Boulevard extension project; the South University District development projects; and the Graf Street and S 3rd Avenue intersection improvement projects.” Page 32 of 34 Provide documentation on which future developments and volumes were included in the analysis. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant will revise the TIS accordingly and provide a list of studies and developments that were included in the future traffic projections. 11. Page 20: Figure 7 needs to be revised to reflect the correct date for 2038. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant will revise the TIS accordingly. 12. Appendix A Traffic Count Data: The trip rate for the peak hour of the generator is equal to or greater than the trip rate for the peak hour between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. or between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. The City understands that trip generation entering and existing the site during the a.m. and p.m. hours may or may not coincide in time or volume with the trip rate for the adjacent street traffic. Provide justification on why 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. was used in the analysis vs. 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. Addressed 7/1 – Engineering is agreement with the applicant’s justification. Water & Wastewater DSSP Section V. Utility Design Criteria 1. Revise the Water Main Design Report to reflect the correct southern water main tie in location at South 21st not South 22nd Avenue. Addressed 7/1 – The report has been updated. 2. The applicant is advised to size mechanical rooms housing the water meter to fit the required minimum lay length. Coordinate with the Water/Sewer Superintendent and Fire Department on the location and sizing of the mechanical room. See attached exhibits for recommended lay lengths based on pipe size. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has acknowledged the mechanical room sizing condition. The applicant stated that the rooms have been revised based on conversations between the architect and City staff. Page 33 of 34 3. The proposed 8-inch water service line serving buildings 2-4 (Site Plan – Phase 1 West) is currently shown not being looped. If the main were to have a disruption in service at the intersection of South 21st and the entry into Phase 1 (West), buildings 2-4 would not have any water service. DSSP Section V.A.5 All main extensions shall be looped, where possible. Revise with a looped connection to promote redundancy for this size of development. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has revised the site plan to promote redundancy for this size of development. 4. The proposed 8-inch water service line serving buildings 7-9 (Site Plan – Phase 1 East) is currently shown not being looped. If the main were to have a disruption in service at the intersection of South 21st and the entry into Phase 1 (East), buildings 7-9 would not have any water service. DSSP Section V.A.5 All main extensions shall be looped, where possible. Revise with a looped connection to promote redundancy for this size of development. Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has revised the site plan to promote redundancy for this size of development. 5. BMC 38.410.070.B.2. Note for the Infrastructure Submittal that water service lines cannot exceed 150 feet in length (see Building 9, Phase 1 East). Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has revised to reduce service line lengths. SITE PLAN ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Addressed 7/1 – The applicant has updated the sheets accordingly Cover – Site Plan 4. Provide a sheet with a legend for line types and symbols. C1.0 Overall Site Plan 5. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan difficult to read. 6. Remove any linework (buildings and parking lot) for future phases. This Plan should show scope related only to the proposed Phase. Page 34 of 34 7. Remove any linework for items that are existing that will be removed during demo. Provide a separate demo sheet, if applicable. 8. The site plan does not account for snow storage. Please provide snow storage calculations along with proposed snow storage locations. C1.1 Site Plan Phase 1 West 9. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan difficult to read. 10. South 21st Avenue is shown not being completed to the north. Is that the intent or does the road continue into the proposed Nexus Point development? C1.1 Site Plan Phase 1 East 11. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan difficult to read. 12. BMC 38.410.070.B.2. Note for the Infrastructure Submittal that water service lines cannot exceed 150 feet in length (see Building 9). C1.3 Grading and Drainage Plan 13. Complete a final Site Grading and Drainage Plan to allow for a full review. See the Design Standards and Specifications Policy Section II.B. 14. Include sufficient spot elevation data and invert elevations. 15. Label existing contours at the perimeter to ensure tie in to adjacent property/future phases. 16. Provide the following on the plan: a. Material/type of storm drain. b. Pipe sections should include pipe diameter, material, and slope information.