Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSafeway Informal No. I-10003.pdf Report Complied On March 31, 2010 REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Safeway Informal #I-10003 MEETING DATE: April 5, 2010 AGENDA MEETING ITEM: Action RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission considers the comments from staff, the Design Review Board, and provides the applicant with comments to assist them in preparing a formal application. BACKGROUND: The Safeway Corporation has submitted an application for informal review. They are seeking comment and input from the Commission and various advisory boards regarding a redevelopment project. The project is a grocery/retail use project at the Northeast corner of West Main Street and North 19th Avenue. The property lies within the West Main Street and North 19th Avenue Class II Entryway Corridors. This property is the previous home of the Ressler automotive dealership and is currently vacant. The proposed project would be wholesale redevelopment of the entire property with the demolition and removal of all current buildings on site. The Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board reviewed this proposal at their March 24th meetings. The purpose of the informal review is to determine the general appropriateness of the site plan, vehicular access, building location, and building architecture proposed. The applicant is also seeking comment on a request to provide 20% more parking on site than recommended by the Design Objectives for the Entryway Corridors. The area is currently designated as Community Commercial Mixed Use within the Bozeman Community Plan as are the majority of the surrounding properties. The property is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District). The proposal includes one 67,112 square foot building and associated parking. A building of this size would be classified as “Large Scale Retail” and specific code provisions for this use would apply. See the attached code section for more information on the requirements for large scale retail. The applicant has received some significant feedback regarding concerns about the building’s location not being located on the streetscape along West Main Street and the proposal for parking and circulation between the building and the street along this south side of the project. Other areas of concern include the nonconforming access locations along West Main Street that facilitate access to the parking between the building and the streetscape, and franchise architecture. There was discussion at the Design Review Board that the building design submitted was franchise architecture and of a style that was more consistent with Commission Memorandum 106 Report Complied On March 31, 2010 buildings and developments further north along North 19th Avenue. The DRB and staff have noted that the intersection of North 19th Avenue and West Main Street is a major gateway in Bozeman and may be the logical beginning to a more formal urban architecture as Main Street moves east towards the City’s historic core. Last year the Commission granted approval to a major site plan application (4 buildings total) for a CVS pharmacy development on property at the northwest corner of this intersection. The proposed CVS pharmacy building and the design guidelines for the development included a more urban materials palette and detailing that included steel, standard brick masonry, sandstone and wood details which reflects more closely the city’s urban architectural traditions downtown. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission Attachments: Staff memo to the Development Review Committee, dated 3-24-2010 Staff memo to the Design Review Board, dated 3-24-2010 Minutes of the Design Review Board’s 3-24-10 public meeting Section 18.40.180 BMC Large Scale Retail Guidelines and Requirements Aerial photo Other Safeway Architecture Examples Applicant’s informal application 107 community planning zonin g subdivision review annexatio n historic preservation neighborhood planning urban design GIS CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner DATE: March 24, 2010 RE: Safeway Informal, #I-10003 The following comments relate to Planning issues. The majority of issues identified by Planning are design related and as identified in the Design Objectives Plan. These issues are generally not under the purview of the DRC and will be resolved through staff, the Design Review Board and the City Commission. Please note that comments are based on the materials submitted by the applicant and that there may be other issues that arise should the applicant choose to proceed with formal review: 1. Project Location and Use: a. The subject property is Lot 1 and Lot B-1 of the Amended Plat of the Kirk Second Subdivision. b. The tracts are of undetermined size and are zoned B-2, Community Business District. c. Within the limits of the West Main Street and North 19th Avenue Class II Entryway Corridors. d. Proposed use: Large Scale Retail, Grocery and Retail with accessory office and storage. 2. Development Review Process: a. Site Plan (Site Plan), Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) with Deviations (DEV) Application: This project will require a standard site plan application. The site falls within the West Main Street and North 19th Avenue Class II Entryway Corridor which would require a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). b. The request for a parking count over that allowed in the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) would require a Deviation request. A maximum of 20% above or below a listed standard may be considered. c. Review by the Design Review Board required. d. Review and approval by the City Commission due to the classification of the project as Large Scale Retail subject to 18.40.180 BMC. 3. Drive Accesses: a. A primary full access from shared access easement (24’) and a second restricted access are proposed from North 19th Avenue. b. A primary full access and a second restricted access are proposed from West Main Street. 108 Page 2 c. All drive accesses will be subject to review and approval by the Development Review Committee (DRC) as part of a formal application. d. The Montana Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over both West Main Street and North 19th Avenue in this area. Their concurrence for all accesses will be required. 4. Setbacks: 18.18.050: a. Unified Development Ordinance: i. Front yard: 25 feet is required for buildings in the B-2 district along arterials, 7 feet otherwise. ii. Rear yard: 10 feet iii. Side yard: 5 feet iv. Parking and loading setbacks: 25 feet front yard, 10 feet rear yard, 8 feet side yard. v. The general setbacks appear adequate except for the parking and loading areas along West Main Street. Portions of the parking and loading along West Main are located in the required setback from the ROW. vi. Special setbacks: Staff is working with the Gallatin Conservation District to determine the classification of the ditch/watercourse that is located along the eastern property line. Watercourse setbacks in excess of 10 feet may be required along this ditch/watercourse. vii. Special setbacks: Class II Entryway Corridors require a 25 foot building and parking setback. The setback would be from West Main Street and N. 19th Avenue. viii. Setbacks shall be from the property line or right of way line, whichever is greater. ix. Utility easements may require building and parking setbacks if present. b. Easements: i. Subject to on site Utility and Access Easements. ii. Current easements on site may need to be reconfigured. 5. Building Height: 18.18.060: a. Less than 3:12 roof pitch: 38 feet b. 3:12 or greater: 44 feet c. 37.4 feet maximum height proposed. d. 18.18.060.D requires a minimum floor to ceiling height of 12 feet for all commercial spaces. 6. Landscaping: 18.48: a. See Chapter 18.48: The formal application should include a detailed landscape plan and a calculation that ensures that the required amount of landscape points has been obtained. b. A minimum of 23 landscape points is required per Section 18.48.060. c. Side yard area (east) is unclear. All yards other than parking spaces and drive aisles shall be landscaped. d. The minimum dimension of any parking lot landscaping shall be 8 feet. e. All parking lot islands and yards shall include a minimum of 75% coverage of live vegetation at maturity. f. All parking lots shall be screened. See 18.48.050.C.2. g. All parking lots with residential adjacency require screening. Screening shall be provided from the residential uses to the north as stated in 18.48.050.C.2. 109 Page 3 h. A watercourse setback planting plan may be required for the east boundary of the site dependent on classification of this water feature. i. Protection measures for all mature trees on site will be anticipated with a formal application. Coordination with City Forester Ryon Stover will be required. j. Street trees may need to be provided. Coordinate with MDT and City Forester for West Main Street Frontage. 7. Parking: 18.46: a. 1 space per 250 gross square feet of office space, 1 space per 300 gross square feet of retail and grocery space required. Using the 85% calculation for the following square footages: 56,317 grocery(retail), 1,945 mezzanine (office), and 8,850 retail yields a net of 47, 869, 1,653, and 7,522 respectively. Based upon the parking standards listed above for retial and office uses 190 parking spaces are required. b. 228 parking spaces are provided which is within the 125% of parking allowed. 125% of required parking = 237 spaces. A deviation will be required to request parking over 100% of the required parking as required in the Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors. c. Subject to final calculation when uses and building square footages are determined. 8. Other comments: Additional Title 18 Code Provisions a. Section 18.34.090.A.20 requires that if development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing the title they must be configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or the subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements. b. Section 18.38.050.F requires all mechanical equipment to be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. Ground mounted units may not be located in a setback. c. Section 18.44.090.F. The applicant’s plans depict a shared access easement with the property to the north. A copy of the signed shared access agreement/easement with the adjoining property owner should be provided with a formal application. d. Section 18.46.040.E requires dedicated bicycle parking areas, a bike rack detail must be noted on the site plan. The bike racks shall a model as recommended in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. e. Section 18.42.170 requires a photometric lighting plan for all on-site lighting including wall-mounted lights on the building must be included in the site plan submittal. A manufacturer’s cut sheet of the lighting fixtures is a helpful addendum to the site plan. f. Section 18.42.170 discusses trash enclosures. Temporary storage of garbage, refuse and other waste materials shall be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned town house or condo units, in every zoning district, except where a property is entirely surrounded by screen walls or buildings unless alternative provisions are made to keep trash containers inside the garage in which case an explanation of how trash is dealt with shall be provided in the written narrative accompanying your final site plan. The size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash 110 Page 4 enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division (phone: 582-3238) prior to site plan approval. (e.g. written approval from local waste services for the removal of solid waste and/or provisions for screening of collection areas shall be provided with the final site plan). g. Need snow removal storage areas and detention/ retention facilities. Location and details must be shown on a formal submittal. h. Staff recommends a plan to corral and store grocery carts be presented with a formal application. A detail of the proposed corrals shall be submitted. Required parking spaces will not be allowed to be converted to cart storage. i. Section 18.42.140 provides the requirements for off-street loading berths. Two berths will be required for this use. All provisions in this section shall be addressed in a formal application. j. Tree protection measures shall be instituted for all landscaping proposed to be retained on site. Coordination with City Forester Ryon Stover will be required. k. Per 18.52.070 a Comprehensive Signage Plan is required for all multitenant buildings. The plan shall address size, location, materials, lighting, and design approval authority. 111 planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner RE: Safeway Informal #I-10003 DATE: March 17, 2010 for the March 24, 2010 Meeting Planning Staff is hoping to obtain informal comments from the Design Review Board (DRB) on the Safeway Informal proposal. The proposal includes property that is located at the northeast corner of North 19th Avenue and West Main Street, which is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District), and commonly known as the previous home of the Ressler automotive dealership. The proposal is to demolish all existing buildings on site and construct a new Safeway with associated retail spaces, parking, and site improvements. The project is being reviewed by the Development Review Committee on March 24, 2010 and the City Commission on April 5, 2010 to receive informal comments. The DRB’s comments and minutes from the meeting will be forwarded to the City Commission with the staff report. The applicant is seeking a deviation to the maximum required number of parking spaces. Staff calculates the required parking for the site at 190 parking spaces. The applicant requests a deviation to provide 228 parking spaces. The Design Objectives Plan (DOP) for Entryway Corridors states in Chapter 2, Site Design Guidelines, J. Parking Lots “In all developments, minimize the number of cars parked on site. For major site developments, parking supply shall not exceed the minimum requirements, unless provided in structured parking.” Title 18 in Section 18.30.080 states that in order for the Commission to approve a requested deviation that they must make “a determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards…” In addition to the deviation request, this use is classified as Large Scale Retail per the code as the total square footage of the building exceeds 40,000 square feet. Section 18.40.180.C.5 BMC that governs large scale retail states that “…all development governed by this section [large scale retail] shall exceed design criteria and development standards in Chapter 18.30, BMC Entryway Overlay District, including the general design objectives plan and guidelines contained in the adopted or updated Design Objectives Plan, regardless of location or zoning district. Said design criteria and development standards shall be exceeded through design practices such as additional architectural detailing, exceptional landscape design, improved public spaces, use of renewable energy and /or recycled construction materials and provisions for alternative modes of transportation. The City Commission shall determine whether established design criteria and development standards have been exceeded based on a recommendation from the Design Review Board.” 112 Page 2 Planning Staff is offering the following recommendations and comments on the proposed design: 1. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: For All Properties: a. See the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) for Entryway Corridors at pages specified. b. Page 13—Provide convenient pedestrian and bikeway connections among abutting properties. The plan as submitted does not provide any internal pedestrian connections to and among abutting properties. For a site development of this size, only two pedestrian connections to the sidewalks along public streets are included. Connections to the residential development to the north, the small office complex to the northwest of the site and the Hastings Shopping Center should be provided. The perimeter chain link fencing on site will either need to be removed or replaced with an acceptable new type of fencing with gates in the appropriate locations to allow the pedestrian connections to abutting properties. c. Page 13—Objectives for Site Design. Provide convenient connections to regional pedestrian and bikeway circulation systems. As stated above, only two pedestrian connections are provided to the boulevard sidewalks along N. 19th Avenue and West Main Street. The proposed connections are a minimum 5’ wide concrete pedestrian walk. Staff recommends increasing the size of the connections widening them to 10’ and including pedestrian scale lighting, benches, raised planters, public art, additional landscape beds, or other urban design amenities to bring these connections above the minimum standard required. Alternative surfacing such a pourous paving or concrete would also be considered as an element that exceeds the minimum standards. The application should consider an additional pedestrian connection along the northernmost shared drive from N. 19th Avenue to the building that would also provide an opportunity for a crosswalk and pedestrian connection to the office buildings adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. d. Page 14—Street Character. The use of a coordinated set of street furnishings is encouraged. The site should utilize a coordinated set of furnishings for the development. The proposed amenities should be of high quality and have a strong urban character that emphasize regional traditions. Cutsheets of all furnishings shall be submitted with the formal application. e. Page 14—Street Character. The use of a coordinated landscape design shall be used along the street edge to establish a single identity for the area and to buffer the view of cars into the parking areas. Use plant materials that are similar to those on adjacent properties. The plans show no new landscaping along the public frontages of the project and no landscaping to buffer the parking on site. The formal application will need to provide a high quality coordinated plan for the public frontage that retains existing mature vegetation, enhances the stormwater facilities in these areas so as to provide a naturalized landscape amenity, and significant landscape planting clusters and other strategies to buffer the significant parking on site. Architectural screening in combination with other landscaping including low screen walls is recommended for the parking lot screening in order to exceed the minimum standards. f. Page 21—Incorporate drainage systems as a part of the site amenities and landscape design. The storm system should be designed so that it is incorporated into the site landscaping as naturalized amenities. g. Page 21—Parking areas should be designed to minimize stormwater runoff. The applicant should include Low Impact Development principles in the parking lot to exceed the minimum standards. Bioswales within the parking area should be considered. The overflow parking areas such as that proposed to the north of the primary building are discouraged by the DOP. The guidelines state that if they are to be provided they should utilize porous paving materials that will optimize infiltration of stormwater into soils. 113 Page 3 The applicant should consider an alternative paving design to achieve this guideline in the parking are to the north. h. Page 22—Where it is to be used, design a detention pond as a site amenity. The landscape plan submitted does not specify areas for stormwater retention and detention on site. Retention/detention facilities should be incorporated into the site design. i. Page 23—Policy for Building Placement. Buildings should be sited to respect development patterns that are identified in the design objectives for the area, such as the orientation of the structures to the street, alignment of building fronts and setbacks, relationship to neighboring properties, as well as the location of buildings at major intersections. The proposed building is sited such that it does not match the setback patterns of the more recent buildings constructed in the area. The Town and Country Grocery building to the north and the Pierce Flooring building constructed to the west, the Audi dealership to the south are close to the street and constructed at the setback lines for the corridor. The proposed CVS major site development approved for the Billion properties to the west includes all buildings sited and aligned with one frontage directly on the street, with parking to the side and the rear. The proposed Safeway building is setback from the street with a row of parking and a drive access between the building and the setback line. This layout supports the retail spaces on the south side of the building with parking directly adjacent to the retail and provides a full access to the site from the south. The layout does not position the building to fit the anticipated setback pattern for the corridor, does not provide visual interest to pedestrians, does not provide enclosure to the street, does not minimize the impact of parking on site, or minimize driveway cuts in the area as anticipated by extensive guidelines in the DOP. j. Page 23—Organize the public edges of a site to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Parking areas do not provide visual interest to pedestrians. k. Page 23—Locate a building entry near the sidewalk edge with an entry plaza and landscape, when feasible. The guidelines state the building should be placed at the setback line along West Main street with a large entry plaza with landscape features in order to address the street edge, maintain the setback pattern, and to bring the entrances as close as possible to the sidewalk along West Main Street. l. Page 23—Building shall be positioned to fit within the general setback patterns specified for the corridor. The building is not positioned in the setback pattern specified for the corridor. See page 66 of the DOP for the West Main Corridor:”Provide an infill building adjacent to the sidewalk in new and established developments. This will provide visual interest to the pedestrian, as well as buffer parking areas.” m. Page 24—Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site. The proposed entrance sitting areas for the building do not provide a focal point for the site. There appears to be opportunity on site to provide a main outdoor focal point with enhanced urban character and amenity in order to exceed the minimum standards. n. Page 24—Connect an outdoor public space with major building activities. If the building were moved to the setback line along West Main Street there would be an opportunity to provide a large public space that would be actively used, connected with major building activities, oriented to maximize solar orientation and extend the seasons in which it would be feasible to use outdoor seating, and to act as the focal point for the site. o. Page 27—Clearly define a key pedestrian entrance into a major site development with distinctive landscape elements. The two primary pedestrian entrances into the site are not defined with distinctive landscape elements. p. Page 28—Within a development, convey the hierarchy of internal street and driveways in the streetscape design. The proposal does not convey a hierarchy of internal driveways. The primary drive aisles and circulation routes should have a 114 Page 4 character and level of landscaping that conveys them as “primary streets.” Drive aisles which access smaller parking areas and the drive through uses should be clearly subordinate to the primary routes. q. Page 28—Minimize curb cuts onto a public street along a property edge. The proposal does not eliminate any curb cuts. There are two curb cuts along the south side to West Main Street and in very close proximity to an existing curb cut to the east for the Hastings Shopping Center. The guidelines point to the removal of the easternmost curb cut at the south and the movement of the building to the setback lines in this area. r. Page 29—Identify a key entry point into a major site development with special landscape design elements. The four primary vehicular entrances into the site are not defined with special landscape design elements. s. Page 29—Minimize the width of internal roadways when feasible. The site development contains extensive drives to support circulation, deliveries, parking, and ingress and egress. In many circumstances 30’ and 45’drive aisles are proposed. In commercial developments drives that support 90 degree parking configurations are required to be minimum of 26’ wide and all other two way drives without parking can be as narrow as 24 feet. All drive aisles on site shall be minimized except for areas specifically required to be wider for loading and truck turnaround. t. Page 30—In order to reduce the land area for parking surface, use alternative methods of meeting parking demand. The applicant proposes a deviation to increase parking beyond the 100% maximum allowed in this section. u. Page 31—Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. The current design maximizes the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site by locating the the parking areas between the building and public ways and by not providing any screening for the parking on site that is visible from the primary public streets. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (highly landscaped berms, clustered intensive planting beds, low decorative walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedge, combinations thereof, etc.). v. Page 31—Use shared drives to access parking areas when feasible. Staff supports the utilization of a shared access for the northernmost access from N. 19th Avenue. w. Page 35—Landscape buffers should be provided. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (highly landscaped berms, clustered intensive planting beds, low decorative walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedge, combinations thereof, etc.) and between the northernmost parking area, loading area and the residential development to the north. The amount of landscape screening for the parking areas currently depicted between the parking and the public street is insufficient. x. Page 39—Building design. Innovative new designs that draw upon regional design traditions are preferred. Standardized franchise style architecture should be strongly discouraged. The design submitted is a franchise design. A survey of photographs from recent Safeway franchise construction illustrates that this design contains strong franchise elements. See attachment. y. Page 42—Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. In general this building only provides adequate articulation of mass on the south and west elevations. Staff recommends that with the formal application the applicant consider expanding more detailed and articulated architectural treatment along the north elevation and along the width of the retail spaces on the east elevation. The north elevation and loading zone is highly visible to residential development to the north of the project and the east elevation to a certain distance north from the south façade face will be visible from W. Main Street. z. Page 46—Use traditional building materials for primary wall surfaces. Staff recommends that the applicant and DRB discuss considering more appropriate urban 115 Page 5 materials, such as standard brick masonry (staff does encourage the exploration of other brick colors other than red hues), steel, or other alternative materials. Staff does applaud the applicant for not proposing EIFS for any of the wall surfaces. aa. Page 51—Sign Design Guidelines. A comprehensive sign plan is required for this site. The building mounted signage proposed must be consistent with the square footage allowed in the BMC for all uses. 2. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: West Main: a. See pages 63-68 of the DOP. b. The vision for development of the W. Main Corridor is that it have a strip of green (25’setback), landscaped open space along the roadway and then, an edge of buildings generally defining the inside edge of the greensward. c. Building shall present facades to the public walk that are visually interesting. They may include display cases, storefronts, public art and other decorative features that provide visual interest and establish a sense of human scale. d. The goal is to encourage more buildings to be constructed to the minimum setback. Parking should be primarily located to the interior of the property. e. Internal driveway systems should permit circulation between properties without returning to the highway. f. Page 68—See illustration. Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials May 2007 color vicinity aerial map Safeway examples Sent To: D & G Investments LLLP 7406-B Shedhorn Dr. Bozeman, MT 59718-8172 Safeway Inc. Jeff Parker 1121-124th Ave. NE Bellevue, WA 98005-0990 116 1 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Walter Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Randy Wall Mark Hufstetler Elissa Zavora Bill Rea Visitors Present Carson Taylor, Commissioner Jeff Parker Shelly Engler Casey McKenna Turner Askew Matt Ekstrom Douglas Livingston Darren Schroeder ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2010 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to approve the minutes of March 10, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Safeway INFORMAL #I-10003 (Krueger) 1735 West Main Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a Safeway Grocery store and to permit a Deviation to increase the allowable amount of parking by 20%. Jeff Parker, Matt Ekstrom, Shelly Engler, Douglas Livingston, and Darren Schroeder joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting the west side of 19th Avenue had been reviewed and approved by the DRB (CVS site). He stated he always provided a memo for the DRB with regard to inconsistencies between the proposal and the Design Objectives Plan. He stated the applicant was requesting a Deviation for an increase in parking 117 2 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 and noted it was typical that Deviations may be granted when the proposal went above and beyond what was required such as high level design, conservation efforts, etc. He stated it would be a high level review due to the large scale retail use and the location of the site within the Entryway Corridor. He stated he would be answering all of the same questions in a formal Staff Report to the City Commission with a formal application. Planner Krueger stated the first issue was pedestrian connectivity; one of the biggest requirements. He stated there was already a sidewalk installed around the perimeter for the State of Montana right of way and that section would not be altered; his comments for pedestrian connection would be directed to the site itself. He stated there was a well developed housing complex to the north of the site and he thought there would be an opportunity to connect to the adjacent uses. He stated the pedestrian connection through the main parking lot could be wider and a little more urban; there were opportunities to connect to the Hastings property. He stated there was a grade change at the West Main Street frontage and a stronger connection could be included in that location. He stated the Casino property was not part of the proposal, but a pedestrian connection could be made to provide for future redevelopment of the site. He stated the mature vegetation would need to be worked around but a better pedestrian connection could be instituted. Planner Krueger stated coordinated site furnishings should be of the same character and the applicant would be required to submit that information at the Final Site Plan stage of review. He stated Staff anticipated a high level of landscaping would be included on the Main Street side of the site. He stated swales were located on the property and retention/detention facilities would need to be included in the formal submittal. He stated the parking area should be designed to minimize storm water runoff; Staff would support an additional parking area, but Staff would be looking to the applicant to mitigate the additional impervious area. He stated the policy for building placement had been addressed; the building should be close to the street with the parking alongside to provide a sense of street enclosure and pedestrian interest. He stated two drive accesses had been proposed very close together; the applicant had some access issues on West Main Street where one would be full access and the other would be right in, right out; he suggested the applicant could investigate a shared access agreement with Hastings. Planner Krueger stated parking on site required a minimum of four foot screening, but Staff was suggesting some architectural treatment, vegetation, or other method of buffering. He stated if the building were moved closer to the sidewalk, there would be great south facing views and pedestrian amenities could be included. He stated the Design Guidelines indicated buildings should be brought to the sidewalk where possible and there were opportunities to provide amenities on the site without them being located directly against the building. He stated some of the larger entrances into the site should be highlighted with landscaping or higher levels of paving. He stated there was a fairly standard circulation layout on the site and suggested there was nothing pointing to the fact that there are main entrances; he suggested something to convey that the routes were primary. He stated the minimization of pervious surfaces could be attained by reducing the width of some of the drive isles proposed for the site. Planner Krueger stated the requirement triggering the Deviation request was from the maximum allowable amount of parking as stated in the Design Objectives Plan. He stated he had addressed areas of the site that would need buffering and landscaping and that would be reviewed with the formal proposal. He stated standard franchise architecture was strongly discouraged; the 118 3 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 proposed was a version of the Safeway vernacular and he had provided the DRB with other versions of designs that Safeway had used. He suggested the compatibility with surrounding developments would factor into the approval of the project; it would be an opportunity to set a precedent in the Entryway Corridor and he was looking to the DRB for comments. He stated one of the designs was from the Missoula Safeway that he would characterize as Italianate. He stated the proposed north elevation would abut a residential zone and would need a higher level of architectural treatment as well would the east side of the retail space along West Main Street. He stated Staff suggested traditional building materials and the exploration of more masonry urban forms as opposed to rustic architecture that was more characteristic of North 19th Avenue north of Oak Street. He stated a Comprehensive Signage Plan would be required for the site; two free standing signs were proposed and might require a Deviation as only one was allowed. He stated the setback would essentially be fifty feet and Staff would like to see the mature Aspen trees maintained. Mr. Parker thanked the City, specifically the DRB, for taking the time to review the proposal and stated they were here with an open mind and open ears; he thanked Planner Krueger for the time he had spent in compiling Staff comments. He stated Safeway had been in the current store for 40 plus years and the building had been added onto several times; they could no longer increase the size. He stated they had been looking for an opportunity to find a location for the next forty years. He stated there were a few things of great importance to them including access on and off the property as people would go elsewhere if it was too inconvenient for them. He stated visibility was also very important to them, but there wasn’t a whole lot they could do about the existing building; he suggested a landscape plan would be proposed that the City and Safeway could agree on. He stated they were at the meeting to exchange ideas; they had put a lot of thought into the proposal and would refine things for the formal submittal. Mr. Parker suggested an open conversation between themselves and the Board. Chairperson Livingston suggested Mr. Parker explain the reasoning for the site design as proposed. Mr. Parker responded there had been some internal constraints with regard to the site and they had felt the proposed footprint would allow larger departments and help them to compete with the other stores in town. He stated the Casino property not being available at a reasonable price had also been a constraint for the site and needed to be worked around. He stated locating the building more closely to the property line had been investigated; the grading of the site with the location of the building further south would require a heightened grade for the whole site or placing the structure partially into the ground on the south side. He stated the convenience parking proposed for the retail element on the site would be critical as he did not feel that the retail component would work without that convenience. He stated the wider drive isles proposed would provide a higher level of safety for the patrons of the establishment. He stated the importance of the full turn movement onto Main Street had driven them to propose the accesses as depicted. Mr. Schroeder stated the proposed retail had been intended to provide interest to the site. He stated he appreciated Planner Krueger’s comments on pedestrian connectivity and retention/detention strategies that identify focal points. He stated for the Deviation to be viable, the site design/materials would need to be above and beyond the code. He stated the site was pretty tight in terms of width, the primary pedestrian access should be wider, and they would think of pedestrian connectivity. He stated a tower element had been included to frame the corner and provide scale and balance; it would visually terminate the long line of the front 119 4 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 façade. He stated the façade tended to fall under traditional lines of symmetry and balance and there would be a distinct style of heavy timber and mountain architecture. He stated the applicant felt it was important to have a cohesiveness of architectural styles and it was always tricky to accurately depict those features on architectural renderings. He stated the use of transparent glass had also been included to provide pedestrian interest. He stated they did not foresee much activity along the landscaped ditch and did not want to draw a whole lot of attention to that area. Mr. Parker stated they had thought of connections to the adjacent properties, but he did not know how far the expectation of the City or DRB would go for pursuit of those connections; there was no landing on the adjacent property – would Safeway be expected to install a path or place for people to get to the path. He stated the adjacent properties might not want a pedestrian connection to their sites. He stated it seemed most logical to connect to the medical office building as there was an existing sidewalk end with a grassy area but he did not know if any of the adjacent sites would be amenable to installing a pedestrian connection. He stated the proposed landscape plan had been a starting point and he did not think the point calculations would stay as proposed; they had not wanted to jump to conclusions with regard to what the Community and the City would like to see for landscaping. Mr. Hufstetler stated he lived near the site. He asked if an analysis of increased traffic flow at the intersections had been done. Mr. Parker responded they were currently doing the traffic impact study and it would be used to analyze all accesses and the intersections to make sure they would function. Mr. Ekstrom added that CVS site had also done a traffic analysis and those results would be taken into consideration. Mr. Hufstetler stated there was a possibility of emphasizing one entrance over the other on each of the street fronts to help direct the traffic flow. Mr. Parker responded the full turn counts would likely be higher while the right in, right out would generally be less utilized but more convenient. Mr. Hufstetler stated there didn’t seem to be a visual indication to the motorist which entrance to use and suggested those visual cues be included. Mr. Schroeder added the multiple accesses proposed were intended to provide breathing room on the site. Mr. Parker added that highlighting the access points had been suggested by Staff and those types of comments would be addressed with the landscaping plan. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant had considered a non-rectangular, overall massing for the building due to the odd orientation and configuration of the property. Mr. Schroeder responded they had briefly considered a different form, but the loss of the Casino property on the corner made more site constraints; he added that the treatment of the corner of the structure was the key piece and would be very prominent – their effort had been focused on the front facade. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was not a big fan of the tower feature on the corner; he suggested some of the other Safeway designs included a better corner design – he cited the Audi dealership across the street. Mr. Livingston responded the materials would be more rustic in nature with the use of timber, but he did not think the tower feature should look like the Audi dealership across the street. Mr. Wall asked the review process for the formal submittal. Planner Krueger responded the applicant would need to submit a Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviation Application that would be reviewed by the DRB and the City Commission for final approval. Mr. Wall stated that on the first page of the Staff memo additional architectural detailing, landscape design, etc. had been indicated as methods of going above and beyond what the code required; he asked the applicant to explain how each of those items had been addressed. Mr. Parker directed Mr. Wall to the last page of the Informal submittal where they had preliminarily addressed those items; they would have enhanced site furnishings, pedestrian connections, 120 5 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 outdoor amenities, enhanced entrance surfaces, conservation efforts would be investigated, existing energy codes would be exceeded, and outdoor plaza spaces with heaters under the canopy would be installed. He added the landscape plan as proposed was at 26 points, which was more than required, but it was only the beginning of those discussions. He stated parking stalls would be called out on the formal submittal for car pools and hybrid cars, though it was not currently specifically called out on the site plan. Mr. Schroeder added that the intent of the list was to show how those items were met with the formal submittal and the list had been included to begin conversations. Mr. Wall asked where other improved public spaces would be on the site. Mr. Schroeder responded it was not on the plan, but there would be a promenade to the center entrance of the store with bollards, accent pieces, landscaping, seating areas, etc. – they looked on the area as another plaza. Mr. Wall asked the intent for requesting a 20% increase in parking. Mr. Parker responded a grocery store was very much a convenience business and the request to provide that level of convenience and allow the store to be competitive; he stated he had analyzed other parking fields in Bozeman and they were in the 3.6 or 3.7 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. range. He stated the parking request would put Safeway equal to the same number of spaces as Albertson’s, Smith’s, or Roseauer’s. Mr. Banziger stated Planner Krueger had alluded to the development along Main Street from 7th Avenue to 19th Avenue and asked the City’s opinion of what type of development they would like to see. Planner Krueger responded that a pattern had not been established and the Commission was supportive of both more traditional masonry buildings and more modern buildings. He stated the only context available would be the buildings around the site. Mr. Banziger asked if the vision was to see that strip more urban than suburban. Planner Krueger responded the most recent version of the Growth Policy contained strong language with regard to urban development. Mr. Banziger asked Mr. Parker if there was any intent to pursue LEED certification. Mr. Parker responded the corporate standards were continually evolving and a store built in Bozeman would probably be considered LEED compliant, but would not likely be LEED certified. Mr. Livingston responded they were darn close with the proposed conservation efforts and if there were a bronze or tin LEED rating, Safeway would have it. Mr. Banziger asked if Safeway and the design team had extended a hand to the surrounding property owners regarding pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Parker responded he had not approached the surrounding property owners and he was not opposed to that outreach, but he was concerned with Staff’s expectation of Safeway having to do things offsite. Mr. Banziger suggested at least making contact and talking it through. Planner Krueger responded the installation could be made up to the property line and when adjacent properties redeveloped, the connection would be available. Mr. Rea asked if the 50 foot setback distance on Main Street was in contradiction with the Design Objectives Plan. Planner Krueger responded it fell back on whether it was an urban or suburban model; he added room might be needed for a dedicated bicycle system not necessarily another drive lane. Mr. Rea asked if the ditch running between the two sites had any special designation. Planner Krueger responded a formal classification had not yet been determined by the Gallatin Conservation District. Mr. Rea asked what the plans were for the existing Safeway structure. Mr. Parker responded there were no particular plans for the existing site and until the entitlement process had been secured, they would make no official statement; standard procedure was the disposition of the property either by re-tenanting or selling the property to make it available for complete redevelopment. He added Safeway did not have the reputation of leaving a blank space as blight along Main Street. 121 6 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 Ms. Zavora asked if the eight points called out for trees on the landscape plan were all that were being asked for. Ms. Engler responded a few Ash trees would qualify, but some of the trees were too small to be counted and it would be difficult to tell how many could be salvaged due to the grade of the site. Ms. Zavora asked when the existing trees had been installed and if they had been inspected for disease. Ms. Engler responded the trees were installed by Cashman’s ~15 years ago, but she had not yet checked the trees for disease; she added there was some existing vegetation on the north side of the site as well. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Krueger to clarify items I-K in the Staff memo, where direct statements were contained that the applicant had not built to the setback lines and had not presented the structure as close to the street as Staff would like to see. Planner Krueger stated Staff’s default position was something that would need to aspired to and brought to the Commission; the starting point was to discuss options where the site would still function and the Design Objectives Plan guidelines could be addressed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Krueger for the CVS site plan to refresh his memory on the orientation/location of the structure. Planner Krueger presented the DRB with the CVS site plan. Chairperson Livingston asked the distance of the drop in grade from the sidewalk to the existing pavement. Mr. Livingston responded it was a four foot change in grade. Chairperson Livingston asked the parapet height for the overall building and the interior height. Mr. Schroeder responded the parapet height would be 24 or 26 feet in height with an interior height of 12 feet and stated they recognized the need for the parapet height to be above the mechanical equipment. Chairperson Livingston opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing none forthcoming, he closed the public comment period. Mr. Parker asked if central or eastern Montana had any particular examples of pervious materials; his team was concerned with freeze/thaw constraints. He stated his other concern was that heavy loads through the truck aisles might cause the material to fail at a quicker pace. Planner Krueger responded Bozeman was aspiring to use those materials, but he knew of no place in town that had already installed them; he would defer to the manufacturers of those materials and added it would be another way that Safeway could exceed the minimum standards. Mr. Banziger responded MSU had agreed to test a pervious material that had not been successful; even when cleaned and maintained it broke down due to drastic temperature changes. Mr. Livingston added he had a meeting with the manufacturers and the material would need chemicals and maintenance which were concerns of Safeway. Mr. Ekstrom stated that on airport tarmacs, a porous top course was included to remove water from the runway quickly, but was a very thin sheet. Mr. Parker stated Safeway very much appreciated the opportunity to come and receive comments from the DRC and DRB. He stated they anticipated incorporating the comments they had heard today into the formal application submittal. He stated the presentation to the DRB and the community was not a franchise design and was not a plan that would be seen anywhere else, though it contained common Safeway themes. Mr. Hufstetler stated he thought there was no doubt the proposed would be an improvement to the existing property and, though he would make comments that were critical, he was generally supportive of the proposal as it would improve the site. He stated he often rolled his eyes at Staff 122 7 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 for requiring amenities where they would never be used, but pedestrian enhancements for the property would be crucial for the site. He stated there was, at one point, a supermarket in the Hastings complex that had a tremendous amount of pedestrian activity and suggested a venue for pedestrian access should be incorporated into the design. He stated the traffic issues would be tough and there was no doubt there would be a significant increase in that activity; entrance to the site from 19th Avenue would be impossible during certain times of the day. He stated he saw difficulty in the way the entry was proposed off of Main Street and 95% of the people would be headed to the Safeway and not the retail stores; the convenience spaces would be a recipe for disaster. He cited the Radio Shack situation on Main Street and suggested decreasing the number of tight, sharp turns into the parking lot. He stated it was a property that was not particularly well suited for a big box store; he did not oppose the concept, but issues unrelated to the architecture and design would come up. He stated he thought the proposed structure was well crafted and he liked it, but it had been designed as a Montana stereotype that was not necessarily a design reflective of Bozeman or the urban center of town. He stated he would like to see a design with equal creativity and detail, but with a more urban design to it. He cited some architectural features that he considered brilliant (swooping roofs, etc.) and suggested the applicant could look at some of the alternative Safeway designs. He stated he liked the tower feature as it indicated an entryway to Bozeman; he suggested emphasizing the tower more to make it a space that actually got use (putting the coffee shop in there for instance). Ms. Zavora concurred with Mr. Hufstetler regarding the stereotypical Montana building design and she liked the idea of things being more urban in design. She stated she had not seen exceptional landscaping though the applicant had alluded to a more elaborate plan. She stated counting existing trees was the easy way to achieve the requirements, but she would rather see more plantings to give the site more style and pizzazz. She suggested the applicant review the CVS landscaping to give them an idea of what was expected. She stated the trees along N. 19th Ave. looked sickly and were not worth keeping and added she would like to see a more diverse species palette that would set the site apart; a fresh, new look. She stated she was concerned that on the N. 19th side of the site there was a wet area that was likely meant to be a retention pond and encouraged the applicant to take a stronger look at drainage. She stated she did not see too many pedestrian enhanced areas and suggested those amenities should not be located between two parking spots. She stated the space on the site allowed enough room to install a good pedestrian area and added she agreed with Mr. Hufstetler that the area had a lot of pedestrian activity. She suggested the pedestrian connection should be installed, it would be used; the applicant was losing the opportunity to draw pedestrians to the business. She stated she did not think the four foot grade change was enough to worry about and suggested she would prefer to see the building closer to the street. Mr. Wall stated he was not a professional architect, but he had some strong concerns. He stated the improvement for the corner would be welcome, but he did not think the proposal would necessarily be the right improvement. He stated Bozeman’s intention was to be the most livable place and to contribute to the quality of life to the community. He stated proposal’s needed to recognize corridor specific design guidelines to make the development unique; he did not think the development as proposed was unique. He stated the purpose of the rendering presented by Planner Krueger was to encourage people to develop the street character with facades and buildings arranged with their parking to the inside of the lot. He stated with regard to geographic location and access, the site was at the gate of Bozeman. He stated, in his opinion, the project presented was the antitheses of what Bozeman was seeking and had been demonstrated by the 123 8 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 number of design comments made by the Project Planner. He stated the proposal looked corporate to him and he understood racking standards and such would need to be followed, but suggested an alternative design. He stated he was not supportive of the approval of the Deviation to allow more parking; it would be the opposite of the intent of the design guidelines. He suggested the applicant would need to go back to the drawing board and bring back a project that sought to accomplish the urban planning goals for the City of Bozeman. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated the business would need to be competitive, move, and grow but he was concerned as he walked downtown and saw the loss of businesses from the downtown area to the outer areas of the City; he suggested the City may need to consider those moves as the community grew. He stated there was a strong neighborhood element in the University area and many students would go instead to Town & Country on 11th Ave. He suggested taking Staff comments to heart as he fully supported and agreed with them; he thought the applicant should look at the design and the layout of the site. He stated that maybe it wasn’t franchise architecture, but to him, the proposed structure looked as if it belonged north of Oak Street. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler and Staff that 19th Avenue was the beginning of urban architecture and suggested the site could be the anchor for urbanism that moved east down Main Street. He stated the long range master plans for the university also showed more urban design in that location. He stated he appreciated and supported the sustainability features proposed for the property and encouraged the applicant to investigate more of those options. He stated he concurred that pedestrian connections should be included on the site and suggested transit connections also should be included. He stated he truly appreciated the applicant’s effort to come in advance to compile comments. Mr. Rea stated he concurred with previous DRB comments, especially Mr. Banziger’s last comment regarding the applicant’s effort. He stated the Informal review process encouraged him and the DRB had seen the process work on the other side of 19th Avenue (CVS site). He stated Bozeman is a biking community; people even rode their bikes in the winter. He stated he could ride down to the current Safeway site with his children in tow and it was difficult, but the new site would be suicide to ride a bike to. He encouraged the applicant to investigate not only pedestrian, but bicycle access as well. He stated the term franchise was subjective, but he thought the proposal was franchise architecture. He suggested increasing the height of the retail spaces by 2 or 3 stories and added that he thought the building should be closer to the street. He added that, for that intersection, the proposed design was not good enough and would need to be better. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated the applicant pursuing the Informal review process for comments. He stated Planner Krueger had hit the nail on the head with Staff recommendations and he was completely supportive of those comments; he suggested focusing on items I-K. He stated the site itself had to dictate the building and it appeared there wasn’t enough study done on marrying the functional requirements and the design guideline criteria; the site was very difficult. He stated the applicant would need to put as much energy as possible into the submittal and maybe the building would not end up being a box; he suggested really studying the site. He stated the structure could have a phenomenal solar orientation and suggested investigation into the use of that orientation. He stated he was not supportive of the “beigeing” of Bozeman. He reiterated that items I-K of the Staff memo would be critical with regard to design of the site; there would be great opportunities for solar or other conservation efforts. He stated good design paid and the community would appreciate it. 124 9 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and what came out of it was that there was a lot of emphasis on the corner. He stated the site was a more formal way into the City of Bozeman and was located at a significant intersection in Bozeman. He stated he saw a lot of traffic concerns with vehicles attempting to go both east and west along Main Street and understood why the City was discouraging curb cuts. He stated he would advocate a more urban building and suggested that moving the structure more toward the road would alleviate a lot of safety concerns. He stated he got the sense that maybe the marketing tool would be that you could see into the store. He stated there was a way to pull the building forward to prevent isolation/safety issues on the northern portion of the site. He stated he thought some attention to pedestrian connectivity would be very important. He stated he was at the Safeway in Missoula not too long ago and it seemed a little bit stark on the site and landscaping; he suggested more landscaping be included in the current proposal. He stated he thought all the previous DRB comments were appropriate. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON DISCUSSION Planner Krueger stated he was the Staff liaison to the DRB and he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Taylor stated his intention was to start a dialog with the DRB. He stated his concern was that he was watching instead of participating and he wanted to be able to interpret the DRB’s views to the Commission better than the notes. He stated the way he had been assigned to the DRB was the Commissioner’s had chosen which boards/commissions they would like to be the liaison for and he saw a role for the DRB and HPAB that needed to be respected. He suggested a method would need to be found to get Staff, the DRB, and the Commission on the same page. He stated he enjoyed watching the Board members ask questions and he thought it was a fascinating process; he added that he wouldn’t always know what questions should be asked. Mr. Wall acknowledged Commissioner Carson’s participation with the DRB and suggested a joint meeting between the Commission and the DRB could be held to discuss policy decisions and help promote communication. Mr. Hufstetler stated one concern was how broad the purview of the Board was supposed to be. Mr. Taylor responded his fellow commissioners had expressed that the line between aesthetic reality and aesthetic opinion was very thin. Mr. Wall stated it would really help to couch the conclusions and recommendations in findings. Mr. Carson concurred that findings would dovetail with Staff recommendations; he concurred with Mr. Wall that a joint meeting with the Commission might be in order. Mr. Hufstetler stated that hours would have been spent by the DRB on the review of a project and it was very helpful to have the Commissioner attend the meetings. Mr. Carson stated he would request clarification by Staff if what they were requesting as a result of the meeting was unclear. Mr. Wall requested that all Staff reports had a conclusion section explaining which action was supposed to be taken as a result of the meeting. 125 10 Design Review Board Minutes – March 24, 2010 ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public comment forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 WEST MAIN STREET - (US HIGHWAY 191)N 19TH AVENUE ADJACENTPROPERTYN.I.C.ADJACENTPROPERTY8'-0" MIN. SIDE YARDSETBACK10'-0" MIN.IRRIGATIONDITCH SETBACKFULL ACCESSEXISTING ACCESS TO PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAYTOTAL PARKING:2288'-0" MIN. SIDEYARD SETBACKEXISTING ACCESS EASEMENTEXISTINGCURBCUT ANDACCESS TOPUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY25'-0" MIN. CLASS II ENTRYCORRIDOR SETBACK FROMROADWAY R.O.W. (EXISTING)8'-0" MIN.SIDE YARDSETBACKEXISTING CURBCUT AND ACCESSTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYNEW PYLON SIGN LOCATIONEXISTING CURBCUT ANDACCESS TO PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY RECONFIGUREDFORSERVICE ENTRANCETRUCK DOCK SCREENWALL @ 9' A.F.F.ADJACENTPROPERTYN.I.C.COMPACTOR SCREENWALL @ 9' A.F.F.ACCESSIBLE PATHFULL ACCESSRIGHT IN RIGHT OUTACCESSENTRY#2999SAFEWAY58,262 S.F.(56,317 S.F. MAIN FLOOR1,945 S.F. MEZZANINE)4798.00 F.F.E.RETAIL8,850 S.F.4800.00 F.F.E.ENTRYOVERSIZE/RVPARKING STALLSOVERSIZE/RVPARKING STALLSCARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTSCARTS CARTS CARTSCARTS NEW ACCESSIBLEPEDESTRIAN ACCESSNEW ACCESSIBLEPEDESTRIAN ACCESSW/BRIDGE+/- 2'-0" DETENTION BASINNEW MONUMENTSIGN LOCATIONINTEGRAL COLOREDCONCRETE PAVING, TYP.EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH SEASONALMERCHANDISINGSPACECOVEREDOUTDOORSEATINGSEASONALMERCHANDISINGSPACESEASONAL SEATINGSPACEPROPERTYLINE10-0" SITESETBACKC/LIRRIGATIONDITCH80'160'40'0SITE PLANSITE INFORMATIONZONING DISTRICT: B-2 - GENERAL BUSINESSUSE CLASSIFICATION: RETAIL LARGE SCALE (40,000 S.F. OR MORE PER 18.80.2630)SPECIAL SITE CLASSIFICATION: SITE LIES WITHIN CLASS II ENTRY CORRIDOR & N. 19TH AVE. & OAK ST. DEVELOPMENT CORRIDORZONING REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: REQUIRED SETBACKS: STRUCTURES: FRONT 25 FEET ADJACENT TO ARTERIALS; REAR: 10 FEET; SIDE 5 FEET. PARKING AND LOADING: FRONT: 25 FT.; REAR: 10 FT; SIDE 8 FT. YARDS, PARKING LOTS, AND LOADING AREAS SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND/OR SCREENED PER CODE. PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE PATHS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN SETBACKS PER CODE. SPECIAL SITE CLASSIFICATION SETBACKS: PARKING AND BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST 25 FT. FROM ANY CLASS II ENTRYWAY CORRIDOR ROADWAY R.O.W. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 38'-0"PARKING & LANDSCAPING ANALYSISSTALL DIMENSIONS:9'x20' FOR 90 DEGREE PARKINGSAFEWAY FLOOR AREA:58,262 S.F.RETAIL FLOOR AREA: 8,850 S.F.TOTAL AREA:67,112 S.F.FLOOR AREA (85% OF TOTAL):67,112 X .85 = 57,045 S.F.MAX./MIN. ALLOWED: 1 SPACE PER 300 S.F.57,045 S.F./300 = 190 STALLSNO. OF PARKING SPACES WITH 20% DEVIATION 190 X 120% = 228 STALLSSAFEWAY PARKING SHOWN: 198 STALLSRETAIL PARKING SHOWN: 30 STALLSTOTAL PARKING SHOWN: 228 STALLSCONVENIENCE PARKING COUNT (250' RADIUS FROM ENTRY): 215 STALLSACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED (201 TO 300 STALLS): 7 STALLSBICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED (10 % OF STALLS REQUIRED, LOCATION NOT SPECIFIED): 190 X 10% = 19 SPOTS(N) REQUIRED LANDSCAPINGBUILDING ANALYSIS:xEXISTING STORE:N/A SFxGROUND FLOOR:56,317SFxMEZZANINE/BASEMENT: 1,945 SFxEXPANSION AREA: N/ASFxTOTAL BUILDING:58,262SFxTOTAL SHOPPING CENTER:67,112 SFPARKING ANALYSIS:xEXISTING PARKING COUNT:N/AxCONVENIENCE PARKING COUNT:215 (250' RADIUS FROM ENTRY)xSAFEWAY PARKING COUNT: 198xRETAIL PARKING COUNT: 30xTOTAL CENTER PARKING:228PARKING CALC'S:xCONVENIENCE PARKING COUNT PER /1000 SF (250)' 3.20xSTORE PARKING PER /1000 SF 3.40xSHOPPING CENTER PARKING PER /1000 SF 3.40BUILDING AREABUILDING AREA:56,317 S.F. MAIN FLOOR 1,945 S.F. MEZZANINE 58,262 S.F. SAFEWAY TOTAL 8,850 S.F. RETAIL 67,112 S.F. TOTAL CENTER AREAMulvannyG2.com601 SW SECOND AVE | SUITE 1200PORTLAND, OR | 97204t 503.223.8030 | f 503.223.8381SITE PLANA1.0SAFEWAYSTORE #2999DESIGN REVIEWSUBMITTAL03.10.10N 19TH AVENUE ANDWEST MAIN STREET,BOZEMAN, MONTANALIFESTYLE PLUS136 137 LOADING AREA T.O. ROOF37'-4" WEST ELEVATION (FRONT) SOUTH ELEVATION (SIDE) NORTH ELEVATION (SIDE) EAST ELEVATION (REAR) MulvannyG2.com 601 SW SECOND AVE | SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OR | 97204 t 503.223.8030 | f 503.223.8381 SAFEWAY STORE 2999 BOZEMAN, MONTANA PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS March 10, 2010 T.O. ROOF37'-4" T.O. ROOF27'-6"T.O. CORNICE 25'-4" GROUND FACE MOUNTAIN BROWN 37'-0" T.O. ROOF37'-4" GROUND FACE MOUNTAIN BROWN 138 MulvannyG2.com 601 SW SECOND AVE | SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OR | 97204 t 503.223.8030 | f 503.223.8381 SAFEWAY STORE 2999 BOZEMAN, MONTANA PERSPECTIVES March 10, 2010 139 MulvannyG2.com 601 SW SECOND AVE | SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OR | 97204 t 503.223.8030 | f 503.223.8381 SAFEWAY STORE 2999 BOZEMAN, MONTANA MATERIAL BOARD March 10, 2010 HEAVY TIMBER WOOD TRUSS GROUND FACE SANDSTONE FIBER CEMENT SIDING DESERT GREY STANDING SEAM GARGOYLE LEDGESTONE COLUMNS GROUND FACE MOUNTAIN BROWN CAST STONE BLACK STOREFRONT GROUND FACE MESA TAN SPLIT FACE SANDSTONE SPLIT FACE MESA TAN 140 BABY BOOKS / GREETING CARDS SNACK / BEV. BABY SNACK / BEV. BEVERAGES BREAKFAST KITCHEN PANTRY INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL A WS -R /L SNACK / BEV. BOOKS / GREETING CARDS HBC HBC GEN. HOME GEN. HOME PET PET 1DVD &BATTERIESC.S.PANPDPDPD PD1111646566HOT/COLD DELI MERCHANDISER MulvannyG2.com601 SW SECOND AVE | SUITE 1200PORTLAND, OR | 97204t 503.223.8030 | f 503.223.8381FLOOR PLANA2.0SAFEWAYSTORE #2999DESIGN REVIEWSUBMITTAL03.10.10N 19TH AVENUE ANDWEST MAIN STREET,BOZEMAN, MONTANALIFESTYLE PLUSSITE PLAN141 MEMO Page 1 of 2 RE Superior Design Elements Gentlemen, Since Safeway will be submitting a Request for Deviation to increase parking by 20 percent of the maximum allowed, the following elements can be used to support Safeway’s argument that by granting the deviation, the outcome exceeds the standards set forth in the code. We are pleased to submit the follow “superior design elements”: 1. Enhanced site furnishings, including covered bicycle parking, benches, and café seating. 2. Enhanced parking surfaces, including Integral colored concrete paving. 3. Sustainable re-use of the existing site concrete as structural fill. 4. Enhanced pedestrian connectivity from both N 19th Avenue and West Main Street. 5. Integral colored concrete masonry on all building facades. 6. Exceeding existing energy codes. 7. Enhanced outdoor plaza spaces. 8. Exceeding existing landscaping requirements. (23 points required, 26 points provided) 9. LED exterior building signage that reduces energy consumption by 80%. 10. LED lights in refrigerated cases that reduces energy consumption by 60%, in addition to dimming sensors that save approximately 83% in light energy. 11. Dark sky rated exterior site lighting fixtures. 12. Water efficient, drought tolerant, native landscaping utilizing a drip irrigation system. 13. Reserved parking spaces for carpool and low emitting fuel efficient vehicles. 14. Distributed refrigeration systems (non CFC) that reduce the amount of copper piping by about 35% and refrigerant charge by approx. 30%. 15. Low flow plumbing fixtures. 16. Advanced energy management systems for HVAC, refrigeration, and lighting. TO Doug Livingston, Design Department Manager Jeff Parker, Real Estate Manager Shei Kei Liu, Store Designer FROM Casey McKenna CC Darren Schroeder DATE 3.10.10 PROJECT Safeway #2999 Bozeman PROJECT NUMBER 09-0238 142 Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Thank you. Casey J McKenna | Associate MulvannyG2 Architecture 601 SW 2nd Avenue | Suite 1200 | Portland, OR 97204 D: 971.998.1565 T: 503.223.8030 F: 971.998.1691 E: casey.mckenna@mulvannyg2.com p:\safeway\09\09-0238-01 bozeman\03design\305designsktch\drc_03-09-10\sde_03-10-10.docx 143