HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 Site Plan Review Comment Narrative 5-29-20
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 1 of 13
ICON APARTMENT HOMES AT 2131 GRAF
SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS NARRATIVE
APPLICATION 19309
Section 2 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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
General Comments
1. Due to the number of corrections for the Master Site application 19308, we will not be
reviewing this site plan concurrently until the master site plan comments have been
addressed.
RESPONSE: Condition acknowledged
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
General Comments
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.
RESPONSE: The desired name of the project is “Icon Apartment Homes at 2131 Graf”.
The Fire Marshall was contacted and indicated that emergency responses are based
on address or GPS coordinates, not project names.
2. 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.
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 2 of 13
RESPONSE: Additional sheets have been added to reduce the amount of information on
each sheet.
3. The project falls in the “Meadow Creek signal, water, and sewer Payback” area. The
applicant must pay payback fees prior to 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: The Meadow Creek signal, water, and sewer payback will be paid prior to final
site plan approval.
4. Traffic impact study (TIS) comments will need to be addressed before the Concurrent
Construction Request will be reviewed.
RESPONSE: The Traffic Impact Study has been revised per the comments and is included
in this resubmittal. In addition, see response comment narrative from traffic
engineer.
Water Rights
Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.410.130
5. 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 approval, the applicant
shall enter 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 the agreement must first be
satisfied by the Master Site Plan application. The CILWR agreement once to final form
and fully signed should be provided with the Phase 1 site plan materials at the appropriate
time.
RESPONSE: Prior to final site plan approval the applicant will enter into the CILWR
Reduction agreement and pay the CILWR fee.
Stormwater
DSSP Section II. Drainage Policy
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 3 of 13
6. 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.
RESPONSE: Included in this resubmittal is a revised Stormwater Report for the entire
development.
7. 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.
RESPONSE: Included in this resubmittal is a revised Stormwater Report for the entire
development with an Exhibit showing the sub-basins with areas listed.
8. 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.
RESPONSE: The majority of the collection system has been revised from curb inlets and
piping to pervious pavers. The Stormwater Report has been revised to show the
revised system and calculations.
9. 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).
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 4 of 13
RESPONSE: Runoff from the roofs flows onto the finish grade near the building, 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.
10. 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
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
RESPONSE: Included in this resubmittal is a revised Stormwater Maintenance Plan with
the new impervious pavers added. The list outlined above is not what is shown in
section II.B.5 but appears to be for a SWPPP. A SWPPP is also provided with this
resubmittal.
11. 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
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 5 of 13
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.
RESPONSE: We are currently monitoring ground water levels. The most recent monitoring
indicates ground water is 6.5-5.5 below ext’g ground, which will be below the bottom
of our subsurface basins.
Water & Wastewater
DSSP Section V. Utility Design Criteria
12. Revise the Water Main Design Report to reflect the correct southern water main tie in
location at South 21st not South 22nd Avenue.
RESPONSE: The report has been revised accordingly.
13. 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.
RESPONSE: The mechanical rooms have been revised based on conversations between the
Architect and City staff.
14. 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.
RESPONSE: The Master Site Plan has been revised to include the installation of the water
mains thru the future phases.
15. 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
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 6 of 13
possible. Revise with a looped connection to promote redundancy for this size of
development.
RESPONSE: The Master Site Plan has been revised to include the installation of the water
mains thru the future phases.
16. 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).
RESPONSE: The design has been revised to ensure no services are in excess of 150’.
Traffic Impact Study & Transportation
17. 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.
RESPONSE: Nexus Point is being constructed first so 21st Street north of Lantern will be
constructed prior to the Graf Street Apartments project.
18. Page 3: third paragraph, third line sentence should read “approximately 0.5 miles north of
Graf Street”.
RESPONSE: The TIS has been revised accordingly.
19. 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: Justification has been added to the revised TIS, see additional comment
response narrative from traffic engineer.
20. 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.
RESPONSE: Justification has been added to the revised TIS, see additional comment
response narrative from traffic engineer.
1 (2012). Trip Generation Manual: User's Guide and Handbook (pg 85) (9th ed., Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 7 of 13
21. 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.)
RESPONSE: Additional explanation has been added to the revised TIS, see additional
comment response narrative from traffic engineer.
22. 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).
RESPONSE: Turn movement percentages have been added to Figure 3 to avoid
confusions, see additional comment response narrative from traffic engineer.
23. 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).
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 8 of 13
RESPONSE: See additional comment response narrative from traffic engineer.
24. 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.
RESPONSE: Justification as to why the assumption is valid is included in the comment
response narrative from traffic engineer.
25. 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.
RESPONSE: See additional comment response narrative from traffic engineer.
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 9 of 13
26. 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.
RESPONSE: See additional comment response narrative from traffic engineer.
27. 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.”
Provide documentation on which future developments and volumes were included in the
analysis.
RESPONSE: The requested information has been added to the revised TIS, see additional
comment response narrative from traffic engineer.
28. Page 20: Figure 7 needs to be revised to reflect the correct date for 2038.
RESPONSE: The revisions have been completed to the revised TIS.
29. 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.
RESPONSE: Explanation has been provided in the additional comment response narrative
from traffic engineer, see the narrative.
Cover – Site Plan
30. Provide a sheet with a legend for line types and symbols.
RESPONSE: Legends have been added to the Site, Dimension, and Grading Sheets.
C1.0 Overall Site Plan
31. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan
difficult to read.
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 10 of 13
RESPONSE: The topo lines have been removed from the Site Plan sheets.
32. Remove any linework (buildings and parking lot) for future phases. This Plan should
show scope related only to the proposed Phase.
RESPONSE: The future phase linework has been removed from the Overall Site Plan and
is now shown on the Phasing Plan of the Master Site Plan Resubmittal which is
submitted concurrently with this submittal.
33. Remove any linework for items that are existing that will be removed during demo.
Provide a separate demo sheet, if applicable.
RESPONSE: Line work for items that are existing that will be removed from the Phase I
Site Plan. No demo sheet is necessary.
34. The site plan does not account for snow storage. Please provide snow storage calculations
along with proposed snow storage locations.
RESPONSE: Snow storage areas are shown on the site plan and we are not aware of any
City stds to complete “calculations” to. In the event that the City experiences a
greater than normal snow fall that cannot be stored in the areas shown the
management company will contract to haul and dispose of excess snow off site.
C1.1 Site Plan Phase 1 West
35. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan
difficult to read.
RESPONSE: The topo lines have been removed from the Site Plan sheets.
36. 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?
RESPONSE: South 21st, north of Lantern is being completed with Nexus Point.
C1.1 Site Plan Phase 1 East
37. Remove the topo linework, it is only required on the grading plan and makes this plan
difficult to read.
RESPONSE: The topo lines have been removed from the Site Plan sheets.
38. BMC 38.410.070.B.2. Note for the Infrastructure Submittal that water service lines
cannot exceed 150 feet in length (see Building 9).
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 11 of 13
RESPONSE: The design has been revised to eliminate any water services longer than 150’
C1.3 Grading and Drainage Plan
39. 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: We believe the Grading and Drainage plans have been completed per the
city’s Design Standards and Specifications Policy Section II.B.1-6
40. Include sufficient spot elevation data and invert elevations.
RESPONSE: We believe sufficient spot elevation data and invert elevations have been
provided.
41. Label existing contours at the perimeter to ensure tie in to adjacent property/future
phases.
RESPONSE: Existing contours at the perimeter have been labeled.
42. Provide the following on the plan:
a. Material/type of storm drain.
b. Pipe sections should include pipe dia.
RESPONSE: Material type and pipe diameter are shown on the drainage plan.
Parks Planner and Development Manager
2. 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 Graf Apartments proposal and describe how the criteria for the reduction
are met. Staff recommends improving the amount and quality of frontage—rather than
fronting on private parking lots, where frontage must be adjacent to developed lots,
buildings should be cited along the park.
RESPONSE: It is our understanding all park related issues have been resolved and park
calculations are included in this resubmittal.
3. Staff does not support the proposed ratio of parkland to Improvements-in-lieu of
parkland. In an area of high-density residential development and with a park not
meeting frontage requirements, the significant reduction of parkland does not appear
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 12 of 13
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.
RESPONSE: It is our understanding all park related issues have been resolved and park
calculations are included in this resubmittal.
4. 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 supplemental information identified by
staff. The CIL proposal will be reviewed by the committee upon revision.
RESPONSE: It is our understanding all park related issues have been resolved. There is
no proposed CIL of parkland as the IIL value exceed the required improvements in
excess of parkland dedication amount.
Solid Waste Division; Russ Ward
5. Must have 50 feet of straight approach to access refuse enclosure. (Parking spots may
not be used for the 50 foot requirement.)
RESPONSE: 50’ straight in approach is provided for all refuse enclosures.
6. Need detailed plan of refuse enclosure.
RESPONSE: A detail of the proposed refuse enclosure is included in this resubmittal in the
Architectural drawings.
7. Refuse enclosure will need to be covered.
RESPONSE: The proposed enclosures are covered, see the revised architectural drawings.
8. Must have 50 feet of straight approach to front of enclosure.
RESPONSE: 50’ straight in approach is provided for all refuse enclosures.
9. Refuse enclosure opening must be a minimum of 10 feet measured from door jamb to
door jamb (we would prefer 12 feet)
RESPONSE: The proposed refuse enclosures have an opening of 10 or more feet.
10. Enclosure doors must open 180 degrees. Doors on the garbage enclosure should be
raised 12 inches off the ground to make sure they open easily over snow.
RESPONSE: The proposed refuse enclosures doors open to 180° and are raised off the
ground at least 12”.
Graf Street Apts
Site Plan Review Comments Narrative
Page 13 of 13
Fire Department
Building Division; Bob Risk
11. Sprinklers and alarms.
RESPONSE: Condition Acknowledged
12. Handicap accessibility.
RESPONSE: Condition Acknowledged
Water and Sewer Division; John Alston
Forestry Division
13. Boulevard trees shall be a minimum of 2 different species for tree diversity (can’t be
all hackberry [Celtis occidentalis])
RESPONSE: This condition is satisfied in the landscape drawings.
14. Staking is required (as per Planting Detail) for one year.
RESPONSE: Condition Acknowledged
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: Condition 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: Condition acknowledged
END OF NARRATIVE