HomeMy WebLinkAboutKohl's Site Plan.pdf1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application #Z-10192
MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Design Review Board recommend conditional approval of the
Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application #Z-10192 with the findings, conditions,
and code provisions provided in the staff report.
BACKGROUND: Mitchell Development Group, LLC, represented by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. have
submitted an application to allow the construction of a 55,363 square foot commercial retail building
and related improvements on property located at the northwest corner of Technology Boulevard and
South 29th Avenue within the Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision.
As project within a PUD, the application is required to be designed in accordance with the design
guidelines for the PUD. This project is subject to the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway.
The Development Manual provides specific guidance for building placement on this site. The
developer of the Bozeman Gateway submitted administrative minor modifications to the Bozeman
Gateway Development Manual to accommodate this project. The modifications were approved by the
Planning Director in August and are attached to the staff report. The primary modification was to add
a second convenience center anchor outside of the lifestyle center. The Kohl’s store is considered a
convenience use similar to Rosauer’s Grocery Store in the Bozeman Gateway.
This property is located within the West Main Street (U.S. 191) Entryway Corridor Overlay District
and the application is subject to Design Review Board (DRB) review with a recommendation to the
City Commission. It falls within the definition of “Large Scale Retail” in the BMC (the proposed
building exceeds 40,000 sf). Therefore, the requirements of Section 18.40.180 of the BMC apply.
Section 18.40.180.C.5 states that “…The City Commission shall determine whether established design
criteria and development standards have been exceeded based on a recommendation from the Design
Review Board.” Hence, the DRB’s review comment, minutes from the DRB review meeting, and
recommendation in regards to this site plan has been provided as noted in their attached minutes and
the attached Staff Report to the DRB which analyzed the Large Scale Retail portion of the Code and
the Design Objectives Plan.
2
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: This development as a Large Scale Retail Use requires the highest level of
design quality and development standard. Section 18.40.180.C.5.BMC Design Criteria and
Development Standards: 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.” Staff and the
Design Review Board have reviewed the project and have found that as submitted the project did not
“exceed” the design criteria and development standards contained in the adopted Design Objectives
Plan for Entryway Corridors. The DRB recommends conditions numbers 4, 5, and 6 (conditions can
be found on page 3 of the staff report) to bring the project into conformance with the Design
Objectives Plan. The DRB recommends conditions 1, 2, and 3 as an avenue through which the project
could “exceed” the design criteria and development standards as anticipated in the above listed code
provision. This is an irregular approach to determining compliance with the code provision. The
burden typically falls on the applicant to demonstrate through the application process that the
development proposal exceeds the applicable standards and not upon the City to determine ways in
which the project could be modified to exceed standards.
The applicant should be commended as they have responded to comments, provided at the DRB
review meeting that were not listed as specific conditions of approval, with the revised elevations
submitted on September 10, 2010. The applicant and Kohl’s representatives were also open to the
consideration and wording of conditions numbers 1 through 3 at the DRB meeting, yet no specific
commitment was received as of the writing of this report that would allow staff to recommend that
conditions 1 though 3 be removed from the project recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the application with the findings and conditions as
recommended by the DRB, DRC and Staff.
2) Approve the application with revised findings and revised conditions as
directed by the City Commission.
3) Deny the applications with findings.
.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The development of a new retail commercial building within the City will
increase tax values and corresponding revenue from the property. The City will accrue additional costs
to service the property with municipal services.
Attachments: Staff Report with Attachments
Report compiled on: September 15, 2010
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
KOHL’S SITE PLAN CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FILE NO. #Z-10192
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 1
Item: A Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application #Z-10192, to
allow the construction of a 55,363 square foot commercial retail
building and related site improvements on property that is located at
945 South 29th Avenue within the Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit
Development and is legally described as Lots 21-25, Phase 2, Bozeman
Gateway Subdivision PUD, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County,
Montana and located within the Class II, West Main Street, Entryway
Corridor Overlay District.
Owner/Applicant: Mitchell Development Group LLC
PO Box 738
Great Falls, MT 59403
Representative: Morrison –Maierle, Inc.
PO Box 1113
Bozeman, MT 59771
Date: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, September 20,
2010 at 6 pm in the Commission Meeting Room, 121 North Rouse
Avenue, Bozeman Montana,
Report By: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Technology Boulevard and South 29th Avenue
within the Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision. Please refer to the
following vicinity map.
The property is zoned B-2 (Community Business District).
Please refer to the vicinity map provided on Page 2.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 2
PROPOSAL
This application submitted by property owner and applicant Mitchell Development Group, LLC and
representative Morrison-Maierle, Inc. for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness would allow the
construction of a new commercial retail building and associated site improvements. The property is
currently undeveloped.
The proposal includes property that is located southwest of the corner of the intersection of South 29th
Avenue and West Main Street, situated south of the Gallatin Valley Mall and west of the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle. The proposal is to construct the 55,363 square foot department store on that portion of the
site designated for development as Convenience Center component of the mixed-use commercial
planned unit development.
As project within a PUD, the application is required to be designed in accordance with the design
guidelines for the PUD. This project is subject to the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway.
The Development Manual provides specific guidance for building placement on this site. The developer
of the Bozeman Gateway submitted administrative minor modifications to the Bozeman Gateway
Development Manual to accommodate this project. The modifications were approved by the Planning
Director in August and are attached to this report. The primary modification was to add a second
convenience center anchor outside of the lifestyle center. The Kohl’s store is considered a convenience
use similar to Rosauer’s Grocery Store.
This property is located within the West Main Street (U.S. 191) Entryway Corridor Overlay District and
the application was subject to Design Review Board (DRB) review with a recommendation to the City
Commission. It additionally falls within the definition of “Large Scale Retail” in the BMC (the
proposed building exceeds 40,000 sf). Therefore, the requirements of Section 18.40.180 of the BMC
apply. Section 18.40.180.C.5 states that “…The City Commission shall determine whether established
design criteria and development standards have been exceeded based on a recommendation from the
Design Review Board.” Hence, the DRB’s review comment, minutes from the DRB review meeting, and
recommendation in regards to this site plan has been provided as noted in their attached minutes and the
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 3
attached Staff Report to the DRB which analyzed the Large Scale Retail portion of the Code and the
Design Objectives Plan. Recommended conditions of approval #1-3 from the Design Review Board are
specifically noted to address the large scale retail requirement to “exceed” the established design criteria
and development standards.
On September 8, 2010 the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Design Review Board (DRB)
recommended conditional approval of this application. Their recommended conditions and comments
are included in this report.
Following the Design Review Board meeting on September 8, 2010 the applicant revised the building
elevations and site elements on the north side of the building in response to comments from the DRB at
that meeting. The revised elevation has been provided with the project binders.
Recommendation & Conditions of Approval
Based on the previous analysis, the Development Review Committee finds that the applications, with
conditions, are in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and Title 18 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The following conditions of approval are recommended. Please note that these
conditions are in addition to the required code provisions listed on pages 7 through 10 of this report.
Design Review Board (DRB) Recommended Conditions:
1. The building shall be designed and constructed as a LEED building or equivalent certification or
program approved by the City of Bozeman.
2. The building shall have a significant field (>30% rooftop area) of rooftop photovoltaic solar
panels installed to generate on site power or equivalent as approved by the City of Bozeman.
3. The building shall earn the Energy Star label or equivalent certification or program approved by
the City of Bozeman.
4. The final landscape plan shall incorporate additional urban landscape/ streetscape features along
the north and east facades of the building. Examples of appropriate features include seating
walls, raised planters, enhanced bollards, public art installations, expanded and more detailed
landscape planting beds, or other innovative urban landscape architecture.
5. The southernmost pedestrian crosswalk across the loading area access shall be removed from the
final site plan. The plaza area and proposed curbwalk within Open Space 7 shall be relocated to
the west side of the north/south trail. In lieu of the pedestrian crossing, a raised planter with
trellis, vines, and other vertical plantings shall be provided along the length of the west side of
the loading area screen wall.
6. Two benches, as specified by the Bozeman Gateway Design Manual, shall be provided at the
primary entrance.
7. Rooftop equipment shall be incorporated into the roof form or screened in an enclosure and
ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. A scaled
exhibit shall be submitted with the final site plan approval demonstrating how the Roof Top
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 4
Units (RTUs) will be adequately screened by the parapet wall of the building or a screen
enclosure. If a screen enclosure is required a construction detail of the screen shall be provided
with the final site plan.
8. The applicant shall develop a security lighting plan for each site as part of the final site plan
submittal detailing which lights are proposed to be left on between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am
for security purposes (otherwise, code requires all lighting to be turned off between said hours).
9. The final site plan application shall return to the Design Review Board for approval prior to final
site plan approval.
Planning Recommended Conditions:
10. Lots 21-25 and the Common Area 6 lot shall be aggregated and/or the common boundaries of
said lots shall be reconfigured through the applicable subdivision review process to
accommodate the project prior to final site plan approval.
11. A revised, signed, and notarized improvements agreement and financial guarantee for all
remaining Phase 2 subdivision improvements, not including those required to be installed with
the site plan, shall be submitted prior to final site plan approval.
12. The landscaping and shared pathway improvements for PUD Subdivision Open Space #6 and #7
shall be installed concurrent with this site plan. The trail system and associated landscaping
within Common area 4 and 7 shall be installed concurrent with this site plan.
13. A construction management plan shall be provided that clearly delineates the limits of
construction, construction staging areas, and addresses weed control/reseeding on disturbed
ground including a long term weed management plan for all areas disturbed. No stockpiles of
topsoil, pitrun or other materials shall remain on or in the vicinity of the site after construction of
the building.
14. Barrier fencing or an approved alternative shall be provided along all edges of the access
driveways and parking areas that do not include curb and gutter until future construction
commences on the adjacent lots. A proposed fencing/barrier detail shall be provided for review
and approval with the final site plan.
15. All building mounted lighting shall be noted and shown on the final building elevations and
incorporated into the photometric plan to be submitted with the final site plan.
16. The northernmost drive aisle to the west of the site shall be removed from the final site plan.
17. That the applicant upon submitting the Final Site Plan for approval by the Planning Director and
prior to issuance of a building permit, will also submit a written narrative outlining how each
of the conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied.
Engineering Recommended Conditions:
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 5
18. The substandard level of service at the intersection of College Street and 23rd Avenue shall be
mitigated unless a variance is granted by the City Commission. Construction of the
improvements required to mitigate the level of service shall be installed and accepted prior to
issuance of a building permit, unless all of the requirements of 18.74.030.C.1.b are met to allow
for concurrent construction. If the requirements for concurrent construction are met, all
improvements shall be installed and accepted prior to occupancy of any structure.
19. Temporary drainage easements shall be granted for all temporary stormwater facilities, i.e.
ponds, swales, etc.
20. The stormwater plan shall address how water quality treatment will be accomplished on the
proposed 30” bypass/overflow main since it is not being routed through the storage facility.
21. The stormwater plan shall address how water is being routed to the temporary ponds. Currently
no ditches/swales are shown.
Fire/Building Recommended Conditions:
22. There shall be no tenant use of the building; including public access; merchandise stocking; on
site employee interviews, training, or orientations; prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the building. The City may allow the installation of racks, shelving, and other
display fixtures prior to occupancy, but only with the approval of the Building Division and Fire
Department.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The DRB, DRC and Staff have reviewed the Site Plan/Certificate of Appropriateness Application. Staff
and the applicable Advisory Boards recommends to the City Commission approval of said application
with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this staff report. Staff has identified various code
provisions that are currently not met by the application. Some or all of these items are listed in the
findings of this Staff Report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project, prior to receiving Final Site Plan
approvals. 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.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is currently vacant and is zoned “B-2” (Community Business District). The intent
of the “B-2” district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions
located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access arterial streets. Retail uses
over 40,000 square feet are permitted as Retail and Large Scale Retail as principal uses in the B-2
district. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Vacant; zoned B-2 (Community Business District) Planned Convenience Uses in
PUD
South: Vacant and Office (Morrison-Maierle, Inc.); zoned B-2 Planned Lifestyle
Center/Lifestyle Center Transition and Office/Professional in PUD
East: Vacant and Office/Light Manufacturing (Bozeman Daily Chronicle): Vacant;
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 6
zoned B-2 and Chronicle B-P (Business Park District). Planned
Office/Professional in PUD
West: Vacant; zoned B-2 Planned Lifestyle Center in PUD
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the subject property to
develop as “Community Commercial Mixed Use”. The “Community Commercial” classification states
that activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a
vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a
whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions
including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service
activities typify this designation.
In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with
significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient
travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most
commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of
.5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban
streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are
anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and
intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided.
High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within
this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to
persons without requiring the use of an automobile.
The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different
purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers
for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger
community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller
Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-15 acre size range and are intended to provide
primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers
support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal
point.
They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors.
Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be
smaller within the local service placements.
Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be
overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are
encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed,
building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 18.34 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 7
In considering applications for site plan approval under this title, the Planning Director, City
Commission, DRC, and when appropriate, the ADR Staff, the DRB and WRB shall consider the
following:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman Community Plan including the
“Community Commercial Mixed Use” classification. The Bozeman Gateway PUD subdivision is a
“center” within the City’s land use pattern. It is anticipated that uses within this land use area utilize
the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. Kohl’s
is a use that is anticipated to be used by the community as a whole. As conditioned, the project will
provide urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space amenities
as anticipated. The project is in proximity to significant streets and intersections with equal
emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle. Transit circulation is planned to be provided within
the Bozeman Gateway in the future. The proposal is in conformance and consistent with this
designation.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations
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. The following code provisions
must be addressed prior to Final Site Plan approval:
Planning Code Provisions
a) Section 18.34.130 requires the applicant to submit seven (7) copies a Final Site Plan within 6
months of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office.
• If occupancy of any structure is to occur prior to the installation of all required on-site
improvements, the Improvements Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal
to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements
not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve
(12) months; however, the applicant shall complete all on-site improvements within nine (9)
months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security.
b) Section 18.34.130 requires that the final site plan shall contain the materials required in
18.78.080 and 18.78.090. Specifically the final site plan shall show all utilities and utility
rights-of-way or easements: (1) Electric; (2) Natural Gas; (3) Telephone, cable TV, and
similar services; (4)Water; and (5) Sewer (sanitary, treated effluent and storm).
c) Section 18.34.140 states that a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be
obtained within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until
the Final Site Plan is approved.
d) Section 18.38.050.F requires all mechanical equipment to be screened. Rooftop equipment shall
be incorporated into the roof form or screened in an enclosure and ground mounted equipment
shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. The final site plan shall contain a
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 8
notation that “No ground mounted mechanical equipment, including, but not limited to utilities,
air exchange/conditioning units, transformers, or meters shall encroach into the required yard
setbacks and will be properly screened with an opaque solid wall and/or adequate landscape
features. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the roof form or screened
in an approved rooftop enclosure.”
e) Section 18.42.150 requires a lighting plan for all on-site lighting including all-mounted lights on
the building and must be included in the final site plan submittal. A photometric plan shall be
submitted to assure compliance with this code section.
f) Section 18.42.150.D.7 requires that all site lighting other than pathway intersection lighting and
security lighting all lighting shall be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions
shall be granted to those businesses which operate during these hours; such lighting may remain
illuminated only while the establishment is actually open for business.
g) Section 18.42.170 states the size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use
and approved by the City Solid Waste Division. 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 enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and
enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Solid Waste
Division (phone: 582-3238) prior to final site plan approval.
h) Section 18.46.040.D states that disabled accessible spaces shall be located as near as practical to
a primary entrance. Parking spaces and access aisles shall be level with slopes not exceeding
1:50 in all directions. Raised signs shall be located at a distance no greater than five feet from
the front of each accessible space and shall state “Permit Required $100 Fine”. One of the
disabled accessible spaces shall also be signed “Van Accessible”. The “Van Accessible” space
shall be 8 feet wide with an 8 foot wide striped unloading aisle. The section requires a minimum
5 foot wide loading aisle adjacent to all accessible spaces.
i) Section 18.46.040.E, requires that bicycle parking be provided. The number of spaces provided
shall be at least 10 percent of the number of automobile parking stalls required. A bicycle
parking location to accommodate all the required spaces shall be specified on the final site plan.
j) Section 18.48.050.L requires that the finish grade of all landscape areas including stormwater
facilities shall not exceed a slope of 25% grade (4 run: 1 rise).
k) Section 18.48.050.L requires that all stormwater retention/detention facilities to be designed as
landscape amenities. See specific code section for specific language and requirements. A cross
section and landscape detail of each facility that meets the requirements of this section shall be
submitted with the final landscape plan.
l) Section 18.48.060 outlines the required performance standards that are required in addition to
18.48.050. A minimum of 15 landscape points are required for this site.
m) Section 18.48.060.A outlines the required performance points for a non site-specific PUD open
space plan. A minimum of 15 points are required for plans on lots without residential adjacency.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 9
n) Section 18.52.060.A outlines the amount of permitted signage for the property. A Sign Permit
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office prior to the construction and installation
of any on-site signage. All final building elevations and site plans shall show the signage
allowed in compliance with this section.
o) Section 18.64.100 states that a building permit shall be obtained within one year of final
approval, or said approval shall become null and void. Prior to the lapse of one year, the
applicant may seek an extension of one additional year from the Planning Director.
Engineering Code Provisions
p) The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned.
q) A Storm Water Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed
to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the
City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot
elevations), storm water detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge
calculations, and discharge structure details), storm water discharge destination, and a storm
water maintenance plan.
A storm water easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County
Clerk and Recorder's Office for the retention pond and discharge course if located off the subject
property.
r) Plans and Specifications for any fire service line must be prepared in accordance with the City's
Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer (PE), and be provided to and approved by
the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire service or fire protection system.
The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection,
post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings.
Plans and specifications for fire service lines must be a separate, stand alone submittal
meeting the requirements of the COB design standards for fire lines. They cannot be part
of infrastructure or final site plan sets.
s) Sewer and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved by the Water/Sewer
Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant.
t) The location of existing water and sewer mains shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby fire
hydrants. Proposed main extensions shall be labeled "proposed".
u) The drive approaches shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (i.e.,
concrete apron, sidewalk section and drop-curb) and shown as such on the FSP.
v) City standard sidewalk shall be installed and properly depicted at the standard location (i.e., 1
foot off property line) along the street(s) frontage. Any deviation to the standard alignment or
location must be approved by the City Engineer.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 10
w) Typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) and typical asphalt paving section detail shall
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Concrete curbing shall be provided around
the entire new parking lot perimeter and adequately identified on the FSP.
x) The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, NRCS, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any
required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to FSP
approval.
y) All existing utility and other easements must be shown on the FSP.
z) Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside the sight triangles, but on the subject
property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off the property and filed
with the County Clerk and Recorder's office).
aa) If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more that 1 acre of
natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau, shall be contacted by the Applicant to determine
if a Storm Water Discharge Permit is necessary. If required by the WQB, an erosion/sediment
control plan shall be prepared for disturbed areas of 1 acre or less if the point of discharge is less
than 100' from State Waters.
bb) The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy
equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the
Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site
developments, or with the infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of
the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes.
cc) All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2. of the Unified Development
Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent
streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the
construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer
shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes
necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations
The Final Site Plan will be reviewed to ensure compliance with this section. The plans will be
further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the time
application is made for a Building Permit. Staff notes a recommended condition of approval to
require that any outstanding subdivision improvements for the Bozeman Gateway PUD
Subdivision Phase 2 be identified and included in a new improvements agreement and financial
guarantee for the subdivision. The subdivision’s financial guarantee has lapsed and some of the
subdivision improvements have not been installed according to the required deadlines specified
in the code and during subdivision approval.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 11
Existing- The subject property is located within Phase 2 of the Bozeman Gateway PUD
Subdivision. Street access and frontage are currently provided from South 29th Avenue and West
Technology Boulevard. The site is vacant and undeveloped. The building site includes six lots
including Lots 21-25 and Common Area Lot 6 within the Phase 2 subdivision.
Proposed- The proposal is for the construction of a 55,363 square foot commercial retail
building with associated parking on the Common Area lot. The proposal includes the concurrent
installation of PUD open space landscaping and trails. As a PUD the Bozeman Gateway site
design is subject to the design guidelines of the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway.
The Development Manual provides specific guidance for building placement on this site. The
developer of the Bozeman Gateway submitted administrative minor modifications to the
Bozeman Gateway Development Manual to accommodate this project. The modifications have
been approved and are attached to this report. The primary modification was to add a second
convenience center anchor outside of the lifestyle center. The Kohl’s store is considered a
convenience use similar to Rosauer’s Grocery Store. Convenience uses do not require the same
level of retail display as would be anticipated within the lifestyle center as envisioned in the
Gateway Manual. The Kohl’s building is sited at the setback lines along South 29th Avenue to
create a building presence along the sidewalk edge. The project has three public edges (i.e., main
entrance -north, South 29th Avenue - east, plaza/open space corridor – west. A future building
pad site directly south of the Kohl’s building is planned to allow a future structure to be
constructed along West Technology Boulevard as part of the lifestyle portion of the Bozeman
Gateway.
West- A large PUD open space is planned west of the Kohl’s site. This is proposed on land that
has not yet been platted. This open space corridor is one of two primary north/south pedestrian
connections through the PUD that will connect Garfield Street to the Huffine Lane frontage.
Further west is the planned lifestyle center core of the Bozeman Gateway PUD.
East- The project site is adjacent to property developed as the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
Newspaper facility and undeveloped lots within the Professional Office component of the PUD.
South- The Bozeman headquarters of Morrison-Maierle Inc. engineering firm is located
southeast of the Kohl’s site and is the only other building that has been constructed in the
vicinity of the Kohl’s site. Vacant lots for future Professional Office and lifestyle transition
buildings are planned on the south side of West Technology Boulevard.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions
The traffic study was completed for this project in June of 2010 to analyze the trip generation for
the project and any anticipated impacts on intersections within the vicinity of the project. The
study suggests that the total uses on site will generate as many as 2,237 total average daily trips.
This number was based upon a 64,322 square foot building and it is anticipated the total numbers
may be less with the smaller building (55,363 square feet) proposed. The estimated traffic
counts are derived from the Institute of Traffic Engineers manuals and are generally based on
gross square footage and specific uses. When the intersections, within the vicinity of the project,
were reviewed for compliance with the City’s level of service (LOS) standards it was found that
the southbound approach to the intersection of South 23rd Avenue and West College Street
currently operates at a LOS “F.” This is under the City’s required LOS of “C.” The applicant
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 12
has submitted a concurrent application for a variance request that would allow the Kohl’s project
to be developed without mitigating the LOS at the intersection of South 23rd and West College
Street.
Vehicular circulation is proposed with formal egress/ingress from South 29th Avenue and
Technology Boulevard. These access points are shared access to common parking areas for the
PUD located between the lifestyle center development on Technology Boulevard and the
convenience pads along Huffine Lane. The applicant proposes two additional drive aisle
connections to Harmon Stream Boulevard to the west to accommodate truck and customer
vehicle access from Phase 1 of the PUD (Rosauer’s Grocery Store and the Bank of Bozeman
building). The drive aisles are substandard in that they are not complete facilities with curbing,
gutters, landscape islands or pedestrian facilities. The applicant has submitted information for
the file that justifies the request to construct the southernmost without the other surrounding
components to complete the driveway. The applicant submitted information for the file that
confirms this southernmost drive access is needed for large truck access to the Kohl’s loading
dock. The other formal access points to the site do not allow the turning radii required for large
truck deliveries. The southernmost drive is in the location of a future planned drive aisle for the
project. In order to mitigate the condition of the drive aisle Staff recommends conditions
requiring temporary stormwater facilities for the drive aisle and a requirement for barrier fencing
to control access on the drive aisle. Staff recommends a condition that the northernmost access
to the west of the Kohl’s project be removed as it is substandard and not justified from a site
access perspective. Vehicles wanting to access Phase 1 of the PUD may use Garfield Street to
make that connection. In the future, Technology Boulevard will be extended to Harmon Stream
Boulevard to allow both pedestrian and vehicular connections to the west.
The minimum parking requirements for the use on site is 1 off street parking stall per 300 square
feet of retail space. Under the code provision, 157 parking spaces are required. The site plan
proposes to construct 192 off street parking stalls and 6 accessible stalls. The parking areas in
the Bozeman Gateway PUD is covered by a reciprocal parking and access easement granted by
the subdivision to allow common access and parking. Staff considers all spaces constructed
within the Bozeman Gateway as shared parking, and as such not until the final buildings are
constructed in the development will staff be able to assess overall parking demand for the entire
PUD. At this point in time, early in the development of the project, staff finds no concern with
the amount of parking provided on site. Parking demand will be continually monitored as site
plans are approved in the development. Parking is provided directly along South 29th Avenue as
was envisioned by the master plan for the Bozeman Gateway. The north/south pedestrian trail
was also envisioned in the master plan to break up the large parking area anticipated between
Huffine Lane and Technology Boulevard. Staff notes a code provision regarding the
requirements for accessible stalls and loading areas. The accessible parking layout on the
preliminary site plan does not meet code requirements for accessible aisles and will have to be
revised with the final site plan application.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress
The vehicular ingress and egress to the site is from South 29th Avenue and Technology
Boulevard. South 29th Avenues connects to West College Street (Principal Arterial) and West
Garfield Street (Collector). Garfield, South 29th Avenue, and Technology Boulevard are
constructed in the vicinity. Technology Boulevard is only partially constructed and does not
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 13
connect today to Phase 1 of the PUD (Rosauer’s). West College Street is planned to be upgraded
to the current principal arterial standard with two lanes in either direction with a raised median.
The West College Street project is on the City’s Capital Improvements Program and is
tentatively schedule for FY11-FY13.
Pedestrian access will be from South 29th Avenue and from a 10’ wide asphalt shared use
pathway along Huffine Lane, connecting to a north/south walkway through the Kohl’s/common
parking area. The shared use pathway along Huffine Lane is a required subdivision
improvement and is located on a PUD open space lot. In order to assure construction of this
facility, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the trail and associated
landscaping be installed concurrently with this site plan. The shared use pathway will connect to
an existing shared use pathway system that is constructed west of the Bozeman Gateway PUD to
Ferguson Avenue and to a future shared use pathway along West College that will be constructed
with CTEP funding. A boulevard sidewalk on the east side of South 29th Avenue adjacent to the
Chronicle property is constructed in the vicinity. This proposal will construct sidewalks along
the project frontage on South 29th Ave. south to Technology Boulevard.
As noted in the attached Staff Report to the DRB the Large Scale Retail section of the code
requires that the City look at the future adaptive reuse components of the site and the proposed
pedestrian provisions and layout of the project would seem to accommodate this.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use,
open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural
vegetation
The landscape design is required to meet the standard of 15 performance points in addition to the
City’s mandatory landscape provisions. Staff notes that the landscape plan as submitted for the
site plan does not meet the required minimum performance points. Staff included a code
provision to require conformance with the required landscape plan performance points with the
final site plan. The parking lot is screened and provides interior landscaping consistent with
required code standards. The parking area is located on a PUD common lot and is for the benefit
of all the lots in the vicinity, and as such, may not be counted towards this individual site plan.
PUD open spaces are proposed/conditioned to be landscaped concurrent with this site plan.
Open space west of the Kohl’s building, a north/south parking lot walkway, and an open space
lot along Huffine Lane between Harmon Stream Blvd. and South 29th Avenue will be improved
with this project in accordance with the Development Manual for the PUD and the attached
landscape details in the application. The DRB recommends conditions that would require
additional landscape amenity and features along the north, west, and east facades of the building.
These conditions are recommended in order to achieve greater compliance with the City’s
Design Objectives Plan. The final landscape plan will be reviewed during final site plan review
for conformance with the requirements of Chapter 18.48 BMC.
8. Open space
All of the significant open space surrounding this site plan is classified as PUD open space in
order to satisfy PUD performance points for the entire Bozeman Gateway PUD. As stated
above, these areas are proposed to be landscaped according to approved PUD plans. This will
enhance the natural environment in the vicinity of the project and will satisfy the PUD and
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 14
subdivision requirements of the Bozeman Gateway. The north and east sides of to the building
include widened sidewalks and street trees. These areas could be developed further to provide
additional outdoor seating and amenity to the site. The DRB recommends conditions to require
additional benches and urban landscape amenities near the primary entrance and additional urban
landscape features along the north and east facades in order to achieve greater compliance with
the City’s Design Objectives Plan.
9. Building location and height
The proposed building is approximately 213’ x 291’ in foot print is proposed to be 55,363 square
feet in size. The building exceeds the 40,000 square foot threshold for individual retail uses. As
such, this project is subject to the standards for Large Scale Retail Uses in Section 18.40.180
BMC. The building is located in conformance with the approved revisions to the Bozeman
Gateway Development Manual. The building is approximately 29-30’ in height at the top of the
tallest parapet. The maximum height in the B-2 district is 38’ with a shallow pitch or flat roof.
The building is located adjacent to the street edge of South 29th Avenue. The primary entrance
faces north and opens to a common parking area and is consistent with other convenience uses in
the Bozeman Gateway.
10. Setbacks
The yard setbacks are determined by the Bozeman Gateway PUD. The project appears
consistent with all approved and required setbacks.
11. Lighting
The light fixture details are consistent with the PUD requirements and appear to meet the
lighting standards. All lighting fixtures must be noted on the final site plan including wall-
mounted lighting and any proposed security lighting. All light fixtures shall conform to the
requirements outlined in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. Additionally,
the pole style light must identify the maximum pole height and a final photometric lighting plan
must be submitted for the entire site in conformance with code requirements. Staff and DRB
have recommended conditions to assure that wall mounted lighting is included in the final
photometric plan and to require a final security lighting plan for the common parking area.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities
The private utilities, water and sewer are located within West Technology Boulevard and South
29th Avenue. Water and sewer is provided directly to the building from South 29th Avenue. The
applicant will need to coordinate with Northwest, Qwest, Bresnan or other private providers for
other services. The utilities and easements need to be coordinated with the landscape plan to
ensure no overlap. No trees are permitted within ten feet of mains and services as noted in the
conditions. All final utility locations, public and private, are required to be shown on the final
site plan.
13. Site surface drainage
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 15
The Bozeman Gateway PUD utilizes a combination of surface stormwater ponds and subsurface
engineered infiltration systems. The majority of stormwater control for the proposal is within a
subsurface pond system within the parking area on the north side of the building. The natural
topography slopes south to north and the surface stormwater system not directed to the
underground pond follows that gradient to future ponds and treatment systems along Huffine
Lane. The natural drainage way for the former Farmer’s canal is incorporated as a landscape
amenity within the PUD open space per the submitted landscape plan for this area. The
Engineering staff recommends conditions to require further details on temporary stormwater
systems and clarifications with the final site plan application to assure conformance with code
standards.
14. Loading and unloading areas
This project provides two loading stalls in conformance with the standards for loading areas.
The area reserved for unloading is approximately 140 feet by 50 feet wide and also includes two
trash compactors to provide waste management for the project. Trucks will access the site from
the southernmost temporary drive aisle west of the site.
15. Grading
The site will require grading to accommodate the large building pad. A final grading and
drainage plan with final calculations is required for review and approval by the City Engineering
Department prior to final site plan approval. No specific areas of concern were identified with
DRC review. Staff recommends a condition to require a construction management plan that shall
be provided with the final site plan that clearly delineates the limits of construction, construction
staging areas, and addresses weed control/reseeding on disturbed ground including a long term
weed management plan for all areas disturbed. No stockpiles of topsoil, pitrun or other materials
shall remain on or in the vicinity of the site after construction of the building according to this
condition.
16. Signage
All new signage shall require a sign permit. If signage is included on the final building
elevations is shall be sized to comply with the code standards for the B-2 zoning district. Staff
notes a code provision that references the requirements for onsite signage. The South 29th
Avenue frontage will be the primary street frontage that will be used in the signage calculation.
17. Screening
Staff has noted a code provision and specific condition of approval to require that all mechanical
equipment be screened. The roof construction of the building includes a parapet wall to assist
with the screening of mechanical equipment. The condition of approval would require a scaled
elevation to assure, with the best information available at the time of final site plan that any roof
top mechanical units proposed are below the top of the parapet wall.
Parking lot screening has been provided according to the required code provisions along South
29th Avenue. A screen is required for the loading area and has been provided along the west side
of the loading area to screen this service area from the lifestyle center.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application Staff Report 16
18. Overlay district provisions
This property is located within the West Main Street (U.S. 191) Entryway Corridor Overlay
District and the application was subject to Design Review Board (DRB) review with a
recommendation to the City Commission. It additionally falls within the definition of “Large
Scale Retail” in the BMC (the proposed building exceeds 40,000 sf). Therefore, the requirements
of Section 18.40.180 of the BMC apply. Section 18.40.180.C.5 states that “ …The City
Commission shall determine whether established design criteria and development standards
have been exceeded based on a recommendation from the Design Review Board.” Hence, the
DRB’s review comment, minutes from the DRB review meeting, and recommendation in regards
to this site plan has been provided as noted in their attached minutes and the attached Staff
Report to the DRB which analyzed the Large Scale Retail portion of the Code and the Design
Objectives Plan. Recommended conditions of approval #1-3 from the Design Review Board are
specifically noted to address the large scale retail requirement to “exceed” the established design
criteria and development standards.
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties
No public comment on the project has been received to date.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other
means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration
or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming;
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the
City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the
development to become nonconforming.
There are six subdivision lots that will be affected by this proposal. Staff notes a condition that
states that Lots 21-25 and the Common Area 6 lot shall be aggregated and/or the common
boundaries of said lots shall be reconfigured through the applicable subdivision review process
to accommodate the project prior to final site plan approval.
Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials submitted August 11, 2010
Additional information submitted August 31, 2010
Revised elevation submitted September 10, 2010
Modified Bozeman Gateway Design Manual pages approved August 27, 2010
Design Review Board Staff Report September 8, 2010
Design Review Board Staff Report Addendum September 8, 2010
Preliminary Design Review Board Meeting Minutes September 8, 2010
Report Sent to: Mitchell Development Group, LLC PO Box 738 Great Falls, MT 59403
Morrison-Maierle Inc PO Box 1113 Bozeman, MT 59771
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
KOHL’S SITE PLAN/COA FILE NO. #Z-10192
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 1
Item: A Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application #Z-10192, to
allow the construction of a 55,363 square foot commercial retail
building and related site improvements on property that is located at
945 South 29th Avenue within the Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit
Development and is legally described as Lots 21-25, Phase 2, Bozeman
Gateway Subdivision PUD, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County,
Montana and located within the Class II, West Main Street, Entryway
Corridor Overlay District.
Owner/Applicant: Mitchell Development Group LLC
PO Box 738
Great Falls, MT 59403
Representative: Morrison –Maierle, Inc.
PO Box 1113
Bozeman, MT 59771
Date: Design Review Board meeting on September 8, 2010, 5:30 pm in the
Professional Office Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman,
Montana.
Report By: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Technology Boulevard and South 29th Avenue
within the Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit Development (PUD). Please refer to the following vicinity
map.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 2
PROPOSAL
This application for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness would allow the construction of a
new commercial retail building and associated site improvements. The property is currently
undeveloped.
The proposal includes property that is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 29th
Avenue and West Main Street, situated south of the Gallatin Valley Mall and west of the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle. The site in questions is zoned “B-2” (Community Business District) and is commonly
referred to as the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD. The proposal is to construct the 55,363 square
foot department store on that portion of the site designated for development as Convenience Center
component of the mixed-use commercial planned unit development.
This is a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application. The recommendations of both the
Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the City
Commission for a final decision.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is currently vacant and is zoned “B-2” (Community Business District). The intent
of the “B-2” district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions
located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access arterial streets. Retail uses
over 40,000 square feet are permitted as Retail and Large Scale Retail as principal uses in the B-2
district. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Vacant; zoned B-2 (Community Business District) Planned Convenience Uses in
PUD
South: Vacant and Office (Morrison-Maierle, Inc.); zoned B-2 Planned Lifestyle
Center/Lifestyle Center Transition and Office/Professional in PUD
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 3
East: Vacant and Office/Light Manufacturing (Bozeman Daily Chronicle): Vacant;
zoned B-2 and Chronicle B-P (Business Park District). Planned
Office/Professional in PUD
West: Vacant; zoned B-2 Planned Lifestyle Center in PUD
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the subject property to
develop as “Community Commercial Mixed Use”. The “Community Commercial” classification states
that activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a
vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a
whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions
including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service
activities typify this designation.
In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with
significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient
travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most
commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of
.5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban
streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are
anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and
intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided.
High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within
this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to
persons without requiring the use of an automobile.
The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different
purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers
for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger
community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller
Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-15 acre size range and are intended to provide
primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers
support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal
point.
They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors.
Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be
smaller within the local service placements.
Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be
overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are
encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed,
building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 4
REVIEW CRITERIA
SECTION 18.40.180 LARGE SCALE RETAIL, SIZE LIMITATIONS AND DESIGN AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS:
18.40.180.C.5. Design Criteria and Development Standards: 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.”
Comments: The applicant has submitted (Section 2 of the Binder) a sheet titled “Kohl’s Project
Narrative” including narrative information and in the attached clip packet regarding how proposal
exceeds standards and to address the above stated section of the “Large Scale Retail” portion of the
Code.
Overall, staff does not feel the applicant has addressed this issue satisfactorily. The narrative in the
attached clip packet notes that the project exceeds the standards with architectural detailing. Staff has
noted conditions on the project to bring the proposal into conformance with the minimum standards
required by the Design Objectives Plan. The applicant notes that the site includes exceptional landscape
design, yet staff has noted during DRC review that base zoning compliance for landscape performance
points has not been met. The applicant notes that the site includes improved public spaces, yet these
spaces are PUD open spaces and were required in the PUD review for the relaxations already granted to
the developer. The applicant notes that the Kohl’s building is designed for LEED certification, yet
Kohl’s states they are not obligated to comply with any terms of LEED certification. Staff recommends
a condition for consideration that the applicant confirm and assure that the building will be constructed
to a LEED certification, be certified Energy Star, and install rooftop photovoltaic solar panels as a way
to exceed the design criteria and development standards.
Section 18.40.180.C.6. Adaptability for Reuse/Compartmentalization: states that “the building design
shall include specific elements for adaptation for multi-tenant reuse. Such elements may include but are
not limited to compartmentalized construction, including plumbing, electrical service, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning. The building design shall also allow for:
a. The interior subdivision of the structure into separate tenancies;
b. Facades that readily adapt to multiple entrances and adapt to entrances on all but one side of
the building;
c. Parking lot schemes shat are shared by establishments or are linked by safe and functional
pedestrian connections;
d. Landscaping schemes that complement multiple entrance design; and
e. Other elements of design which facilitate multi-tenant reuse of the building and site.”
Similarly tied to the above criteria is Section 18.40.180.D.1. that requires the applicant to submit a
“renewal plan” that will “afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 5
municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the structure in the event of closure
or relocation by the original applicant.” This section then includes 4 criteria for evaluation.
Comments: The applicant has submitted (Section 2 of the Binder) a sheet titled “Kohl’s Renewal Plan”
and additional information in the attached clip packet to address the above sections of the “Large Scale
Retail” portion of the Code.
Overall, staff does not see any large issues with the applicant’s plan in terms of adaptability and reuse.
In the future, if the uses/buildings on the site are proposed for change, additional review by the City will
be required to accommodate those uses according to applicable codes in place at that time. In addition,
with the overall development layout being established by the subdivision and PUD, acceptable internal
modifications can likely be achieved.
As previously noted, “Large Scale Retail” requires that “all development…shall exceed design criteria
and development standards contained 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.”
DESIGN OBJECTIVES PLAN -DOP
1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14 of the Design Objectives Plan )
A. Green Space: There are no existing mature trees or shrubs on the site. The site includes
property that has been historically used for agriculture, but has been recently altered to install
infrastructure improvements associated with the Bozeman Gateway PUD. Required open spaces
for the PUD will be developed concurrent with the site plan project. Open spaces #6 and #7
along Huffine Lane and directly to the west of the Kohl’s site will be developed to the PUD
standards. The building pad for a future building along Technology Boulevard is proposed to be
landscaped in the interim until such time that building is constructed. Opportunities to locate
green space between buildings and to integrate stormwater systems into a green space system
will be addressed with continued development of the PUD.
B. Auto Connections: Vehicular circulation is proposed with an egress/ingress from South 29th
Avenue and Technology Boulevard. These access points are shared access to common parking
areas for the PUD located between the lifestyle center development on Technology Boulevard
and the convenience pads along Huffine Lane. The applicant proposes two additional drive aisle
connections to Harmon Stream Boulevard to the west to accommodate truck and customer
vehicle access from Phase 1 of the PUD (Rosauer’s Grocery Store and the Bank of Bozeman
building). The drive aisles are substandard. Staff recommends a condition that the two
substandard access drives be eliminated from the proposal. Adequate access from South 29th
Avenue and Technology Boulevard exist to service the site.
C. Pedestrian & Bicycle Connections: The proposal includes a pedestrian access to the site and
building main entrance from South 29th Avenue. A shared use pathway is required to be
installed along the entire Huffine Lane frontage (Harmon Stream Boulevard to South 29th
Avenue) with this project per a DRC condition. This shared use pathway will connect the
upcoming College Street shared use pathway with the pathway that exists further west of the site.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 6
The pathway west through phase 1 of the Bozeman Gateway proceeds north across Huffine Lane
at Fowler to the shared use pathway on north side of Huffine Lane and extends to Ferguson
Avenue. The application proposes to construct a connection to the pathway system through the
parking lot. The trail section within Common Area 4 is proposed to be constructed, but not
landscaped. Staff recommends a condition that the trail section through Common Area 4 be
constructed with landscaping as shown on the final landscape plan for Open Space 6. Bicycle
connections are available from South 29th Avenue, West College Street and West Garfield Street.
A bicycle parking area is located along the primary (north) façade of the building east of the
main entrance to the building.
D. Street Character: Street trees, lighting, sidewalks/paths, and outdoor furniture can all provide
continuity and sense of place at a pedestrian scale. The proposal includes the standard lighting,
benches, street tree grates, tree guards, and trash receptacles as is utilized throughout the
Bozeman Gateway PUD, The street frontage landscaping and parking lot screening along South
29th Avenue is generally acceptable and consistent with other projects within the PUD.
2. Site Design (pages 15-36)
A. Natural Features: The site does not contain any existing significant natural features except for a
former Farmer’s Canal ditch swale that exists within PUD common open space directly west of
the Kohl’s site. This is proposed to be landscaped concurrent with this project consistent with
the landscape plan for Open Space 7 submitted with the application.
B. Views: This project meets the height and other site requirements required in the B-2 District.
This is a developing urban area and little impact is anticipated to potential viewsheds. The
Morrison-Maierle, Inc. office building constructed to the southeast of the project site is 44 feet in
height. The proposed top of the highest parapet for the Kohl’s building is approximately 29’to
30’.
C. Cultural Resources: The site is undeveloped, no buildings exist on site. The property has been
traditionally used for agricultural uses and has been altered recently to accommodate subdivision
infrastructure. No cultural resources are anticipated on site.
D. Topography: The site slopes down from south to north. Fill will be required to place the
building in the location proposed. In general the PUD has been designed to follow the natural
slope of the land in the vicinity.
E. Site Drainage: The Bozeman Gateway PUD utilizes a combination of surface stormwater ponds
and subsurface engineered infiltration systems. The majority of stormwater control for the
proposal is within a subsurface pond system within the parking area on the north side of the
building. The natural topography slopes south to north and the surface stormwater system not
directed to the underground pond follows that gradient to future ponds and treatment systems
along Huffine Lane. The natural drainage way for the former Farmer’s canal is incorporated as a
landscape amenity within the PUD open space per the submitted landscape plan for this area.
F. Building Placement: Buildings should be sited to respect the development patterns that are
identified in the design objectives for the area or any applicable PUD design guidelines. In the
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 7
case of Bozeman Gateway the design manual provides specific guidance for building placement.
The developer of the Bozeman Gateway submitted administrative minor modifications to the
Bozeman Gateway Development Manual to accommodate this project. The modifications have
been approved and are attached to this report. The primary modification was to add a second
convenience center anchor outside of the lifestyle center. The Kohl’s store is considered a
convenience use similar to Rosauer’s Grocery Store. Convenience uses do not require the same
level of retail display as would be anticipated within the lifestyle center as envisioned in the
Gateway Manual. The Kohl’s building is sited at the setback lines along South 29th Avenue to
create a building presence along the sidewalk edge. The project has three public edges (i.e., main
entrance -north, South 29th Avenue - east, plaza/open space corridor – west. Staff recommends a
condition that the building incorporate display windows or display cases and other architectural
features to provide interest along the three principal façades. The primary entrance faces the
parking area to the north with a widened sidewalk connection entrance to South 29th Avenue.
Staff recommends a condition that additional seating be provided at the primary entrance. In
general as conditioned, the building is positioned to fit within the general setback pattern
specified for the corridor and within the Bozeman Gateway Development Manual.
G. Outdoor Public Spaces: The primary outdoor public spaces for the Bozeman Gateway are
within common areas within PUD open space. Open spaces 6 and 7 are proposed to be
developed with this proposal. The primary entrance to the building includes a widened sidewalk
and street trees. It could be developed further to provide additional outdoor seating and amenity
to the site. Staff recommends a condition to require additional benches on site near the primary
entrance. Decorative surface materials are proposed at the primary entrance to designate a
heavier use pedestrian zone as well as the PUD standard scored and colored concrete crosswalks
at all pedestrian connections through the parking area and across all drive access points.
H. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Systems: As stated in 1.C. above the proposal includes a
pedestrian access to the site and building main entrance from South 29th Avenue. A shared use
pathway is required to be installed along the entire Huffine Lane frontage (Harmon Stream
Boulevard to South 29th Avenue) with this project per a DRC condition. This shared use
pathway will connect the upcoming College Street shared use pathway with the pathway that
exists further west of the site through phase 1 of the Bozeman Gateway. The application
proposes to construct a connection to the pathway system through the parking lot. The trail
section within Common Area 4 is proposed to be constructed, but not landscaped. Staff
recommends a condition that the trail section through Common Area 4 be constructed with
landscaping as shown on the final landscape plan for Open Space 6. Bicycle connections are
available from South 29th Avenue, West College Street and West Garfield Street. A bicycle
parking area is located along the primary(north) façade of the building east of the main entrance
to the building. Decorative surface materials are proposed at the primary entrance to designate a
heavier use pedestrian zone as well as the PUD standard scored and colored concrete crosswalks
at all pedestrian connections through the parking area and across all drive access points.
I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems: The site plan provides a coordinated and
continuous system of driveways to provide traffic follow as depicted in the overall master plan
for the Bozeman Gateway PUD. The two curb cuts onto South 29th Avenue and Technology
Boulevard West were anticipated in the PUD master plan. The driveway circulation system is
sized to the minimum widths allowed by code, outside of the truck loading area. No hierarchy of
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 8
internal driveways is presented, but the plan is generally consistent with the driveway patterns
proposed and approved with the PUD.
J. Parking Lots: Based on required parking for this specific use 157 parking spaces are required.
The site plan proposes to construct 192 off street parking stalls and 6 accessible stalls. This
represents parking above the 100% maximum allowed within the DOP. In this specific case the
parking is covered by a reciprocal parking and access easement granted by the subdivision. Staff
considers all spaces constructed within the Bozeman Gateway as shared parking, and as such not
until the final buildings are constructed in the development will staff be able to assess overall
parking demand for the entire PUD. At this point in time, early in the development of the
project, staff finds no concern with the amount of parking provided on site. Parking demand will
be continually monitored as site plans are approved in the development. Parking is provided
directly along South 29th Avenue as was envisioned by the master plan for the Bozeman
Gateway. The north/south pedestrian trail was also envisioned in the master plan to break up the
large parking area anticipated between Huffine Lane and Technology Boulevard.
K. Site Lighting: The site lighting for the site will be required to meet the standards in Section
18.42.150. A final lighting plan will be required with the final site plan application. The light
poles and luminaries proposed for site lighting have been approved as the Bozeman Gateway
standard. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant shall develop a security lighting plan
for the site as part of the final site plan submittal detailing which lights are proposed to be left on
between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am for security purposes (otherwise, code requires all lighting
to be turned off between said hours).
L. Utilities & Service Areas: Trash compactors are included in a combined truck loading and
service entrance to the building. It is proposed along the west side of the building away from
views from public streets. The drive aisle in this location will function as a service lane. As
such pedestrian traffic in this area is minimized. A large screen wall and a future building along
Technology Boulevard will help screen this area from public views.
M. Landscape Design: The landscape design palette is generally acceptable. Staff noted a code
provision during DRC review that the plan as proposed does not meet the requirements to claim
points for yard landscaping as proposed. The plan will have to be revised to comply.
Additionally all PUD open space landscape plans are required to meet 23 performance points as
noted in the code. Point calculations shall be provided for all PUD open space landscape plans
prior to final plan approval. Staff has noted this as a code provision during DRC review.
N. Buffers: A code provision requires all mechanical equipment locations and screening methods to
be shown on the final plans and buildings elevations, and that they be properly screened with
physical/opaque screening and/or be integrated into the building. This includes all air exchange
systems, telephone, electric panels/meters, gas meters, irrigation controllers, and storm water
facilities. Ground mounted mechanical equipment, including air exchange equipment and
irrigation wells, are not permitted in the required yard setbacks must be noted on the site plan
and landscape plan if proposed. Due to the extensive number of roof top mounted (RTU) units
and an unclear parapet height staff recommends that an exhibit be submitted with the final site
plan to assure that all RTU’s will be screened by the parapet wall of the building.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 9
3. Building Design (pages 37-48):
A. Building & Topography- The building does follow the general lay of the land as suggested.
B. Building Character- The guidelines for building character for “All Corridors” strongly
discourages franchise architecture. The submittal does present franchise elements such as the
primary front entrance and the large element on the front of the building that supports the
signage. The other building materials are consistent with the general character of the Bozeman
Gateway. The character of the building reflects the regional commercial traditions.
C. Primary Building Entrance- The primary entrance fronts onto a large pedestrian way that
connects to both South 29th Avenue and the future lifestyle center. The primary building
entrance is clearly identifiable.
D. Street Level Interest- The building is located along the setback line along South 29th Avenue
and in conformance with the revised Bozeman Gateway Manual. The building is articulated
with some relief in the façade and multiple textures and colors. Staff finds though, that in the
proposed location, the building does not provide sufficient visual street level interest. The design
guidelines state that the sides of restaurants and specialty stores should incorporate windows and
display cases over 1/3 of the façade area. The project has three public edges (i.e., main entrance
-north, South 29th Avenue - east, plaza/open space corridor – west. Staff recommends a
condition that the building incorporate display windows or display cases and other architectural
features to provide additional interest along the west, east, and north principal façades.
E. Building Mass & Scale- The proposed building is approximately 213’ x 291’ in foot print and is
approximately 29-30’ in height. The maximum height in the B-2 district is 38’ with a shallow
pitch or flat roof. The guidelines state that in general a primary façade plane should not exceed
100 feet in length, and if it does it should be divided into subordinate elements. The facades are
are divided into separate elements by small jogs in the façade plane, but not to the degree
envisioned in the guidelines. The building does change materials and colors with each building
module, but does not conform to the requirement to change the height of a wall plane or building
module by at least 20% of the vertical height. Staff recommends a condition that the building
incorporates display windows or display cases and other architectural features to provide
additional interest and to mitigate for the mass and scale of the building along the west, east, and
north principal façades.
F. Roof Form- The primary roof form is a flat roof with parapet walls. The guidelines require that
all roof forms incorporate two features from the list on page 45 of the Design Objectives Plan.
This building as proposed provides two features from this list and is generally appropriate.
G. Building Materials- The materials proposed include a combination of concrete panels, EFIS,
brick veneer, and synthetic stone veneer. As proposed, the palette of materials is generally
consistent with the Bozeman Gateway Development Manual and acceptable in this location.
H. Building Complex- Not applicable.
I. Service Canopies- Not applicable. The policy is specific to gas station canopy design.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 10
J. Color- The guidelines recommend muted earth tones with bolder colors used primarily for
accent only. The color palette is acceptable.
K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment- The UDO and the Design Objectives Plan require all
mechanical equipment to be screened from view. The elevations depict roof top mechanical
equipment screened by the parapet wall. Wall mounted utility service entrances are not
identified in size or with any screening details. These details are required to be shown on the
final site plan and final elevations with any applicable screening details proposed. Due to the
extensive number of roof top mounted (RTU) units and an unclear parapet height staff
recommends a condition that an exhibit be submitted with the final site plan to assure that all
RTU’s will be screened by the parapet wall of the building.
4. Sign Design (pages 49-56)
The signage proposed is of individual channel letter lit by interior led lighting. In general the sign
design proposed is consistent with the guidelines. Staff has noted during DRC review that the
signage sizes proposed exceed that allowed by code for the B-2 zone.
5. Corridor Specific Guidelines
West Main Street (Pages 63-68):
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Internal driveway systems should permit circulation between properties without returning to the
highway.
• Page 68—See illustration.
Staff finds that these guidelines are generally met with this proposal except for bullet point number
two listed above. Staff recommends a condition that the building incorporates display windows or
display cases and other architectural features to provide additional interest and to mitigate for the
mass and scale of the building along the three principal façades.
BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISON PUD DEVELOPMENT MANUAL:
Approval of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD contained a Development Manual for the
project that is intended to implement specific architectural and landscape guidelines to set higher
standards for the planning, design and construction of the Bozeman Gateway. With the
modifications that were approved for the Development Manual, the project is in general compliance
with the Bozeman Gateway PUD Manual. See attached plan page modifications.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 11
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The building shall be designed, constructed, and certified as a LEED building.
2. The building shall have a significant field (>30% rooftop area) of rooftop photovoltaic solar panels
installed to generate on site power.
3. The building shall earn the Energy Star label.
4. The two drive aisles proposed west of the project boundary shall be removed from the final site plan.
5. The trail section through Common Area 4 shall be constructed with the site plan and shall be
landscaped as shown on the final landscape plan for Open Space 6.
6. The final building elevations shall incorporate lighted, transparent display windows or lighted
display cases and other architectural features to provide additional visual interest to pedestrians
along the three principal façades( north, east, and west) of the building.
7. Two benches, as specified by the Bozeman Gateway Design Manual, shall be provided at the
primary entrance.
8. All roof top mechanical units (RTU) shall be screened by the parapet wall. A scaled exhibit shall be
submitted with the final site plan approval to assure that all RTUs will be adequately screened by the
parapet wall of the building.
9. The applicant shall develop a security lighting plan for each site as part of the final site plan
submittal detailing which lights are proposed to be left on between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am for
security purposes (otherwise, code requires all lighting to be turned off between said hours).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggests a recommendation of conditional approval of the requested Site Plan /COA application
#Z-10192 from the DRB to the City Commission. The applicant must comply will all applicable
conditions of approval as recommended by the DRB and Development Review Committee (DRC). The
applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which
are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan or Building Permit approval. 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.
NOTE: The recommendations of the Design Review Board and Development Review Committee
will be forwarded to the City Commission who will make the final decision regarding this project.
Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials
Modified Bozeman Gateway Design Manual pages
Sent To: Mitchell Development Group, LLC, P.O. Box 738, Great Falls, MT 59403
Morrison-Maierle, Inc., PO Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
KOHL’S SITE PLAN/COA FILE NO. #Z-10192
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report Addendum 1
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
Staff has provided revised conditions of approval for the Design Review Board’s consideration. The
conditions of approval are proposed to increase the project’s level of compliance with the guidelines
within the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan and in the case of conditions 1-3 provide an avenue through
which the applicant might exceed the design requirements as anticipated in the Standards for Specific
Uses for Large Scale Retail. The specific focus of the landscape conditions 4-6 are related to the
guidelines for Outdoor Public Spaces, Landscape Design, Street Level Interest and Building Mass and
Scale.
The landscape conditions are also intended to address the requirement in the West Main Street Corridor
for the building to 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.
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONSIDERATION
1. The building shall be designed, constructed, and certified as a LEED building or equivalent
certification or program approved by the City of Bozeman.
2. The building shall have a significant field (>30% rooftop area) of rooftop photovoltaic solar panels
installed to generate on site power.
3. The building shall earn the Energy Star label or equivalent certification or program approved by the
City of Bozeman.
4. The final landscape plan shall incorporate additional urban landscape/ streetscape features along the
north and east facades of the building. Examples of appropriate features include seating walls,
raised planters, enhanced bollards, public art installations, expanded and more detailed landscape
planting beds, or other innovative urban landscape architecture.
5. The southernmost pedestrian crosswalk across the loading area access shall be removed from the
final site plan. The plaza area and proposed curbwalk within Open Space 7 shall be relocated to the
west side of the north/south trail. In lieu of the pedestrian crossing, a raised planter with trellis,
vines, and other vertical plantings shall be provided along the length of the west side of the loading
area screen wall.
6. Two benches, as specified by the Bozeman Gateway Design Manual, shall be provided at the
primary entrance.
7. Rooftop equipment shall be incorporated into the roof form or screened in an enclosure and ground
mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. A scaled exhibit shall
be submitted with the final site plan approval demonstrating how the Roof Top Units (RTUs) will be
adequately screened by the parapet wall of the building or a screen enclosure. If a screen enclosure
is required a construction detail of the screen shall be provided with the final site plan.
8. The applicant shall develop a security lighting plan for each site as part of the final site plan
submittal detailing which lights are proposed to be left on between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am for
security purposes (otherwise, code requires all lighting to be turned off between said hours).
9. The final site plan application shall return to the Design Review Board for consent approval prior to
final site plan approval.
#Z-10192 Kohl’s Site Plan/COA Staff Report 2
NOTE: The recommendations of the Design Review Board and Development Review Committee
will be forwarded to the City Commission who will make the final decision regarding this project.
Hand Delivered To: Mitchell Development Group, LLC, P.O. Box 738, Great Falls, MT 59403
Morrison-Maierle, Inc., PO Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771
1
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:45
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
Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Elissa Zavora Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Mark Hufstetler (via conference call) Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Randy Wall
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Bill Hanson
Susan Swimley
Keith Scott
Ted Mitchell
Jolene Rieck
Tara DePuy
Dan Marihugh
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2010
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of August 25, 2010
as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Holy Rosary Parish Mods to FSP #Z-09016A (Bristor)
220 West Main Street
* A request for modifications to an approved Final Site Plan application to
allow a redesign of the proposed rear entry/lobby.
Bill Hanson joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report
noting the church addition proposal had been previously approved by the DRB. The applicant’s
now were currently requesting an amendment to the approved Final Site Plan. She stated the
amendment was for a redesign of the rear lobby/entry (originally shown as the glass box design)
that would more closely match the existing church structure design. She stated Staff was
supportive of the proposed amendment with Staff conditions of approval. The amended design
has less interaction with the Rectory building, which is historically significant.
Mr. Hanson stated the original glass design was intended to provide a transparent way to enter
both buildings and the current proposal was being requested due to budget constraints. He stated
the entry had been requested to be completely removed, but the Bishop had been opposed to
2
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
having no type of entry to the church; he stated he had been asked to propose a middle ground
design which would involve less of an attachment to the Rectory building. He stated the
amended lobby/entry addition would be roughly 1/3 smaller than the original proposal.
Mr. Hufstetler asked what documentation requirements had been included for the project.
Planner Bristor responded level two HABS HAER documentation had been required for all three
buildings.
Mr. Wall stated he liked the current proposal better than the previous proposals. He stated he
thought it was off base to propose modern additions for a historic structure. He stated he was
supportive of the proposal as submitted.
Ms. Zavora stated she thought the current proposal was more cohesive than the original and she
was supportive of the proposal as submitted.
Mr. Banziger stated he was supportive of Staff’s recommendations of approval, though he
thought the original glass box design had characteristics that he thought would have been
attractive for the building. He stated he was supportive of the project as submitted.
Mr. Hufstetler stated that, as the person supposed to defend the historic guidelines, he agreed
with previous DRB comments. He stated the guidelines distinguishing historic from modern
architecture had good intentions but he was not a fan of the guideline as it was often poorly
implemented and misunderstood. He stated the glass box design had potential but may have
overshadowed the historic components that remained on site. He stated he was supportive of the
design as proposed as it was respectful to the historic portion of the structure that would survive.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he concurred with previous DRB comments and was
supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions of approval.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
for Holy Rosary Parish Mods to FSP #Z-09016A to the City Commission with Staff conditions
of approval. The motion carried 5-0.
2. Kohl’s SP/COA #Z-10192 (Krueger)
945 South 29th Avenue
* A Site Plan with Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the
construction of a 55,363 square foot retail building with related site
improvements.
Ted Mitchell, Jim Ullman, Keith Scott, Tara DePuy, Jolene Rieck, and Susan Swimley joined the
DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for a
Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness with no deviations to construct a 55,363 square
foot Kohl’s Department Store. He stated the Bozeman Gateway was a PUD that had been
approved for a few years. He stated multiple issues had been identified during the informal
review of the proposal with regard to the Design Guidelines for Entryway Corridors as well as
the Gateway Design Manual. He stated a formal application had been submitted and the
application had been deemed unacceptable for review due to its noncompliance with the
Gateways Design Manual. The applicant appealed the Staff determination. Staff worked with
3
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
the applicant to identify the modification to the PUD to accommodate the Kohl’s proposal. He
stated there were two types of modifications to a PUD; minor modifications that could be
reviewed by Staff and approved by the Planning Director; and major modifications that would
need to be addressed through review of a new CUP to amend the PUD. He stated that staff and
the applicant identified administrative changes to the PUD and changes necessary to the proposal
regarding the orientation, size, and placement of the proposed structure. Staff outlined the
changes made to the site plan. He stated the proposal was for a building of a smaller footprint,
outlined that it was still classified as large scale retail, and that the building location had been
relocated north away from Technology Boulevard. He stated the Kohl’s site was now classified
as a convenience use and that convenience uses had a different level of detail required with
regard to transparency, articulation, etc. He stated a third anchor had been anticipated during the
preliminary PUD approval; Roseauer’s, a cinema, and a non-delineated third anchor. He stated
the modifications were appropriate for the PUD with regard to the anchor locations and added
the DRB would not be reviewing the proposal’s design with regard to amendments to the
Bozeman Gateway Design Guidelines. He suggested the DRB review the Site Plan itself as the
Kohl’s building and parking as well as improvements to landscaped areas that would be PUD
analysis. He stated regardless of what constructed in that location there was a requirement that a
higher level of detailing for amenities, open space areas, landscaped areas, etc through the PUD.
Planner Krueger outlined the differences between PUD improvements and those improvements
related to the Kohl’s site itself. He reviewed the Design Objectives Plan language and stated that
it was broken into chapters and explained the outline of the document; he stated that the bullet
points were called out as examples of ways to meet the requirements and noted there were other
options available to meet those guidelines. He stated that as the project had gone through the
DRC and that Staff had received new information through that process that addressed some of
the items from the Staff Report. He distributed the DRC conditions on the project. He stated the
proposed circulation on site included formal three accesses onto a public street and two
additional substandard accesses west of the site. He stated Staff was still concerned about the
safety of the two westernmost accesses. He stated he had provided a DRC condition to allow
the southern access to the west, due to justification as the primary truck route to the property. He
stated the structure was proposed to be installed in large sections, in rapid fashion, and Staff’s
original recommendation was to include a significant number of display cases; the Building
Department had investigated and the new Code would have a significant impact on this type of
construction and would be required to install interior and exterior sprinkling for the display cases
as proposed. He stated the Staff Report had been given to the applicant and they had voiced
concerns regarding the display case condition of approval. He stated he had identified items that
he felt the DRB should consider when reviewing the proposal in lieu of the recommend display
case condition.
Planner Krueger stated he had reviewed the proposal against the design guidelines; the large
scale retail standards had been held to the proposal and he had identified specific concerns such
as outdoor spaces, landscaping, street level interest, massing, etc. He stated there were other
ways to provide street level interest to a pedestrian and noted display cases, landscaping, or
fenestration were some of those methods. He stated he had included a condition of approval to
require landscaping and amenities along the west façade. He stated Staff had suggested focusing
planters and landscaping attention to help break up the proposed mass of the structure and
suggested the pedestrian connection could occur to the north. He stated Staff had asked for
additional information regarding the timeline for some of the improvements required to be made;
4
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
landscaping to the west and through the parking area as well as common area #4 and along
Huffine Lane would need to be completed and could be financially guaranteed. He stated Staff
did not find the proposal to exceed the minimum standards required for large scale retail, but had
been conditioned by Staff to meet those requirements. He stated that in the large scale retail
chapter of the UDO, sustainability standards could be included that would allow the Commission
to find that the proposal had exceeded the minimum standards. He stated there had been
discussion about sustainability standards though the applicant had not committed to those
standards. He stated Staff was in a position that the proposal would be reviewed by the
Commission regardless of what recommendations from Staff and the DRB ended up being. He
suggested the DRB review the revised conditions of approval included in the Staff Report
addendum and added Staff would be willing to forward a recommendation of approval if Staff
conditions of approval were recommended. He stated he had included a condition of approval
that the Final Site Plan be reviewed and approved by the DRB.
Mr. Mitchell stated they were waiting for Mr. Merihugh from Kohl’s to arrive by plane and they
were hoping that he would arrive soon. He stated there were a couple of things that had occurred
since the DRB review in April. He stated Kohl’s had designed a smaller building to allow for
better utilization of the residual land facing Technology Boulevard.
Mr. Ullman stated the reduction in size seemed to fit the site a little better and the loading dock
had been relocated to alleviate the ability of pedestrians and vehicles to see inside the loading
dock area. He stated a screening wall had been provided to narrow the view into the loading
dock. He directed the Board to renderings of the proposed screening and noted from which
direction the view had been depicted. He stated the relocation of the building to the north left
availability for future buildings along Technology Boulevard but landscaping and a trail system
would be included to enhance those sites until building construction was proposed.
Mr. Mitchell reiterated the proposal was part of a PUD and suggested the PUD design guidelines
should be applied to the property.
Ms. Swimley stated the applicant disagreed with Staff that the PUD requirements weren’t met;
they disagreed with the base criteria. She stated the Staff conditions of approval had been
modified and they would need time to consider those changes. She stated the accesses proposed
were substandard and would be improved beyond a private drive; she had heard that it was
substandard due to the lack of pedestrian connectivity.
Mr. Ullman directed the DRB to a location where existing pathways had been approved as Type
II trails and were installed as part of the open space improvements; the trails were dilapidated
and had been replaced with concrete as they would be easier to maintain and would allow access
12 months out of the year. He stated the proposed trail connection would be an upgrade to an
already approved gravel trail and would exceed the minimum standards for the development.
Ms. Swimley added the trail connection would provide safe pedestrian access through the site
and address Staff’s concerns. Mr. Ullman stated the improvements to the trail system would be
the portion that tied the two existing pathways together.
Ms. Rieck stated the code compliance schedule had been included in the landscape drawings.
She noted there had been boulders included that equaled 23 points of the total landscaping. She
stated there was a possibility of five additional points due to the building setback and asked if the
5
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
points did not comply was there something that could be done. Mr. Ullman responded there was
a documented 23 points with an additional possible 5 points and the minimum requirement was
for 18 points. Planner Krueger responded there were non-delineated lots that would need to be
defined; the parking area was a common space and part of the PUD but without a definition of
where the property line would be it was difficult to see compliance. He added Staff could not
necessarily count the landscaping in the parking area as it was part of the PUD compliance as
opposed to the requirements of the site plan. Ms. DePuy asked if any landscaping in parking lots
could ever be claimed. Planner Krueger responded the parking lot would need to stand on its
own and meet point requirements for its own purpose. Mr. Ullman clarified the overall required
PUD landscaping points had been exceeded.
Mr. Ullman stated an e-mail had been provided by Kohl’s addressing any proposed security
lighting and lighting hours of operation. He stated that from one hour after closing the lights
would be turned off and turned on again one hour prior to opening. Mr. Mitchell added there
would be some nights where personnel would be in the building and there would be lighting on
during those times.
Dan Marihugh from Kohl’s, director of store design, joined the DRB. He apologized for arriving
late due to delays in his flight. Mr. Marihugh stated that when the journey with the City of
Bozeman had begun the prototype box design had been proposed. He stated the overall box size
had been reduced to allow for a shop space to be developed on the back side in the future. He
stated crown molding had been proposed for the main entryway with cornice for the rest of the
building, substantial upgrades to materials had been proposed, display windows had been
included, the loading dock area had been reduced in size, and front display cases had been
included to allow visibility into the store. He stated landscaping had also been included along
the sides of the structure when they would typically only install landscaping to the front of the
structure. He stated the structural awning that had been proposed would add to the appearance.
Mr. Mitchell added that usually the buildings were straight concrete and those architectural
features with masonry had been revised to be bumped out ~2 feet. He stated they had increased
the height of the parapet on the entrance of the structure. Mr. Marihugh added that all the
parapet heights had been increased to provide screening for the mechanical equipment that
would be located on the roof; he added the parapets could not be any higher without increasing
the structural demands of the building and costs associated with those demands. Mr. Mitchell
stated metal storefront had been proposed with a new material of steel and composite colored
porcelain glass material instead of spandrel glass. Mr. Marihugh stated they had rarely gone to
the extreme of the proposed modifications/upgrades and added the prototype was LEED certified
though the current proposal would not meet those requirements and added that sustainability
features would be investigated as the company policy was to open LEED certified structures. He
stated Kohl’s philosophy was to add solar panels to building where it made most sense; the
weather conditions in Montana did not warrant the installation of solar panels.
Mr. Wall asked the applicant if the revised development manual dated 8/10/10 was the most
accurate. Mr. Ullman stated Mr. Wall was correct and they agreed on the document more than
when it was originally approved. Mr. Wall asked for clarification that the existence of the PUD
did not mean the applicant did not have to comply with the UDO as well. Mr. Ullman and Mr.
Mitchell concurred. Mr. Wall directed the Board to the PUD guidelines and stated the Main
Street guidelines would apply to the north façade of the proposed structure. Mr. Mitchell
6
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
responded they did not feel the PUD needed modification but they had done so to comply with
City requirements. Mr. Wall stated that on page 9 and 10 of the guidelines “Main Street” had
been defined and was intended to convey a high level of pedestrian activity. He directed the
Board and applicants to all applicable design standards for the Entryway Corridor as well and
confirmed all were in agreement with regard to the requirements for the project.
Ms. Zavora stated it was part of the requirements to landscape future retail structure sites and
asked if there had been any thought of what would happen to that landscaping when the
buildings were constructed. Mr. Mitchell responded the trees would be relocated on the site
wherever possible. Mr. Scott added the location of the relocated trees would depend on future
construction as well as availability of sites. Ms. Zavora asked when the nine month time frame
for site improvements would begin. Planner Krueger responded the nine months would begin
the date the Improvements Agreement was signed. Ms. Zavora asked if completion of those
improvements could be a condition of approval prior to occupancy. Ms. Zavora asked the
material that would be used for mulch and the edging. Ms. Rieck responded it would be rock
mulch with an aluminum edging. Mr. Scott added they were considering concrete edging instead
of aluminum. Ms. Zavora asked for clarification of the fifty feet of groupings. Ms. Rieck noted
those locations and named the species proposed in those areas. Ms. Zavora stated there was some
discrepancy on how to count those points. Planner Krueger responded flexibility had been
granted to allow alteration of sites and rearrangement of lots; some areas were common and to
the benefit of everyone. He stated there were ways within the point system to allow for more
urban environments with less open spaces; the requirements in the UDO dictated minimum
required parking lot landscaping that could not be counted toward performance points though
they could be gained for additional parking lot landscaping. He stated Staff did not know the
final layout of all the lots on the site and more urban performance points could be acquired once
the boundary was defined. Ms. Zavora asked for examples of performance points. Planner
Krueger responded that art work was one option, but he did not have his UDO to list the rest of
those items. Ms. Zavora asked what line was being depicted as a setback. Planner Krueger
noted that location and indicated the property line included the boulevard and sidewalk;
enhancement of the landscaping in that location would count toward the Kohl’s site landscaping
points. He stated an amended plat would need to be submitted for the site before the point
calculations could be finally determined. Ms. Zavora asked when the amended plat would be
required. Planner Krueger responded the plat would have to be submitted and approved prior to
Final Site Plan approval. Ms. Rieck stated the points required could be earned by enhancing
mandatory parking lot landscaping.
Mr. Banziger asked for clarification of what LEED level Kohl’s had achieved. Mr. Marihugh
responded the structures had been LEED certified as silver. Mr. Banziger stated Mr. Marihugh
had indicated there was no guarantee the building could be certified due to the amendments to
the prototype design and asked for clarification. Mr. Marihugh responded a full analysis of the
additional proposed materials had not yet been completed. Mr. Banziger asked for a rendering of
the previous proposal for comparison to the current proposal. Mr. Banziger asked for
clarification of which Staff conditions of approval were causing the applicants concern. Mr.
Ullman responded Staff conditions 1, 2, 3,& 8 were the primary concerns and 7 was unclear as to
the distance from the structure to provide proper screening. Planner Krueger responded the
intent was not to call out a perspective, but to call out screening for the mechanical equipment
proposed for the roof. Mr. Ullman added Roseauer’s had been screened after the fact at the
owner’s request.
7
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
Mr. Ullman asked for clarification of which sidewalks would need to be relocated according to
the staff condition. Planner Krueger responded the southernmost walkway west of the loading
area. Mr. Marihugh responded they wanted to install landscaping in that location, but would
want species that would last and look good to the customer. Ms. Swimley added there was no
guarantee that the building would be LEED certified as an analysis would need to be completed.
Mr. Banziger stated he thought the intent of the language was to require the applicant to try to
get certification for the building. Planner Krueger responded Mr. Banziger was correct and an
out had been provided to allow for the possibility of the structure not achieving LEED
certification. Mr. Marihugh responded Kohl’ general contractors were LEED trained and would
make every effort to meet the certification requirements; he added the process would still be
followed whether the building were LEED certified or not. Planner Krueger stated that if there
was a case where something could not be accomplished, the condition of approval could be
modified or the project itself could be modified through the original approval authority. Mr.
Mitchell asked the parameters of the authority that would be taken if certification could not be
achieved and suggested he would not recommend modifications to the final approval. Mr.
Marihugh stated he could provide Staff with a copy of what was being submitted for LEED
certification to prove due diligence. Mr. Banziger asked for clarification of whether or not the
building architecture was being reviewed. Planner Krueger responded the proposed building
architecture was being reviewed.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked the applicant what was depicted on the rendering
regarding screening. Mr. Ullman responded the screening had been depicted to indicate the
relocation of the dock as well as the reduction of the size. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked
if the UDO defined an elevation view perspective. Planner Krueger responded the UDO did not
specifically require the elevation, but had been requested for more clarity. Chairperson Pro Tem
Pentecost asked if the yard size on the south side of the site would become an attached building.
Mr. Ullman responded it would never be a part of the new building but would be set back 1-2
feet. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if there was a reason that the photovoltaic system
had been specifically included as a sustainability option. Planner Krueger responded the
applicant had provided documentation that the photovoltaic system could be an option for the
structure and he had included that option as a suggestion.
Mr. Wall asked what trails would be constructed as part of the Kohl’s project. Mr. Ullman
directed Mr. Wall to the trail location. Mr. Wall asked if the applicant needed the additional
ingress/egress. Mr. Mitchell responded they would need both of the proposed accesses. Mr.
Wall asked if curb and gutter would be installed in those locations. Mr. Ullman responded they
did not know where the landscape islands would be so would install the curb and gutter at a
future date. Mr. Wall asked how wide the streets were in Gallatin Center. Mr. Ullman
responded they were at least 32 feet, but were public streets while the proposed would be a
private driveway. Mr. Wall stated there were viscous potholes on the ragged edge of the roads in
Gallatin Center. Mr. Ullman responded Mr. Scott was the property manager and would maintain
the high quality.
Mr. Hufstetler was disconnected from the conference phone.
Mr. Wall stated he really liked the Bozeman Gateway project and acknowledged the applicants
on all the hard work they had done. He encouraged them to tow the line on the project despite
8
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
the economic pressures. He stated the site was in a very important corridor for the City of
Bozeman. He stated he loved Roseauer’s and he thought it exemplified what the applicant was
trying to accomplish on the site; he added he did not think the proposed Kohl’s had made the
same accomplishment. He stated the north façade was clearly franchise architecture and he was
struggling with approval. He stated Bozeman’s mission was to be the most livable place and the
DRB would have to be diligent and scrutinize every project that comprises the social aesthetic of
the community. He stated he was concerned about the concept of mitigating visual impacts with
energy conservation efforts and the community would have to live with the building for the next
forty years. He stated another big concern was the pedestrian connectivity of the site; the
proposal had few east-west connections and suggested a gravel trail could be included. He stated
another contribution to the quality of life in Bozeman are urban streetscapes; he did not think he
site achieved the character that Roseauer’s had accomplished. He stated he did not agree with
the applicant that they did not have to adhere to the UDO and the Design Objectives Plan as well
as the Design Guidelines for the PUD. He stated he agreed with Yoda regarding LEED
certification “Do or do not”. He stated he could live with the proposal with the exception of the
north façade and added he would vote against the project.
Ms. Zavora stated the biggest problem she saw with the proposal was that the landscaping
requirements were being met for the entire project in one 150 foot location. She stated
landscaping being proposed currently was less than had been proposed currently. She stated
there was a lack of diversity, texture, and shape in the landscaping being proposed. She stated
there was also a lack of flowering perennials. She stated she thought the proposal was a
downgrade from what had been proposed before and noted there was a lack of any plaza area.
She stated she concurred with Mr. Wall that the north side of the structure needed enhancement
and suggested more than six species for a project of this size.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with previous DRB comments. He commended the applicants
on the amount of work they had done with the City. He stated he knew the applicant was hearing
a lot of what could be better and he did not think they were that far away from a great end result.
He stated conditions of approval 1, 2, & 3 were related to sustainability features and suggested
the applicant could include water collection instead of photovoltaic and would not be
insurmountable if they worked with the City instead of getting stuck on the specific language; he
suggested investigating LEED criteria to see what sustainability features could be options. He
stated it was an improvement to move the building north though he thought the park area lost a
little bit as it had reduced. He stated he concurred with previous DRB comments that the
proposed north façade could be more attractive and noted he knew it was difficult to get away
from franchise architecture due to costs. He suggested architectural detailing could be instituted
in place of the proposed glass. He stated the Drivit proposed could be a better material and
suggested a little more work could accomplish a great end result. He suggested the applicant
think of the culture of Bozeman with regard to views, greenery, bicycles, etc.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he looked at the architecture more closely than landscape
plans or a parking lot. He stated he commended Kohl’s for their commitment to LEED; he
encouraged the applicant to look at conditions of approval 1 and 2 as part of their efforts to
institute sustainability features. He stated that architecturally he thought there would be an
opportunity to break up the massing on the south elevation and suggested it could look more
lively; he added even color could be used. He stated he struggles with fake windows and
suggested the applicant include real glass in a dead window. He stated he believed the building
9
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
had cleared marginal design, but was not yet tremendous though it exceeded the Kohl’s standard.
He suggested pushing the LEED margin further. He stated that on the west elevation there was a
screen wall proposed and suggested a tremendous amount of life could be added by carrying the
brick from the tower down the to the screening. He stated the applicant had indicated the
photovoltaic was not as good in Montana and Bozeman had huge high groundwater problems; he
suggested ground source heat could be investigated and might be cost effective.
Mr. Mitchell stated he appreciated the DRB’s comments and noted that other than a small
portion of the front of Roseaur’s the glass was all spandrel glass. Mr. Banziger added there
would be an opportunity to include artwork in those locations if depth were added.
Mr. Marihugh stated the fifteen foot space in front of the building could be enhanced by the
installation of benches and trelliswork and noted Kohl’s was committed to being in Bozeman.
Mr. Wall suggested the applicants could open and continue the proposal to the next meeting of
the DRB. Mr. Banziger responded the conditional approval could be achieved and would
include the requirement that the Final Site Plan be reviewed by the DRB prior to approval.
Mr. Wall stated he did not understand the metric for LEED certification and what the bottom line
for those sustainability features would be; they could take their best shot and if they did not get
certified they could modify the approval. Mr. Banziger responded the language should be
comfortable for both the City and the applicant. Mr. Wall asked how Mr. Banziger would feel
about setting a precedent for not meeting the requirements for the DOP, UDO, and PUD Design
Guidelines. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost clarified that the DRB had no approval authority
and were not in a position to disallow something to happen because they don’t like it. Mr. Wall
responded the DRB advice would be critical and would be precedent setting.
Ms. Zavora asked if there had ever been a condition of approval regarding the requirement to be
LEED certified. Planner Krueger responded there had not been a condition previously and noted
Staff’s concern was that the applicant had indicated attempting LEED certification but was
uncertain if they would be able. Mr. Ullman responded that after a year and a half, the Morrison-
Maiaerle building had been LEED certified, but not everything had been done.
Mr. Banziger suggested the removal of the word “certified“ from condition of approval #1 and
asked if the applicant and City would be amenable to the modification. Planner Krueger
responded Staff would prefer flexibility in the language. Mr. Marihugh suggested also removing
the word “design” would achieve their goal.
Ms. Swimley stated the concern was the offset when including the word “design”; she suggested
there was likely some language designed for LEED certification that would likely meet both the
applicants and City’s goals; they did not want to be penalized for things required to be added to
the building. Mr. Banziger stated he felt the word “design” should remain and the Commission
would be the entity to make that decision. Mr. Wall stated he understood what Planner Krueger
had intended with the wording of the conditions and if the effort was made and Staff found the
effort to have been made.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for Kohl’s SP/COA #Z-10192 with Staff conditions of approval, the
10
Design Review Board Minutes – September 8, 2010
amendment of condition #2 to include the language “or equivalent as approved by the City”, and
to strike the language “consent” from condition of approval #9. The motion carried 4-0.
Mr. Banziger stated he would like to see condition of approval #1 modified to strike the word
“certified”. Ms. Zavora stated she did not understand the condition of approval holding the
development to higher standards than the rest of the City with regard to LEED requirements.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to remove the language
“certified” from condition of approval #1. The motion carried 4-0.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation to
the City Commission for Kohl’s SP/COA #Z-10192 with Staff conditions of approval including
the removal of the language “certified” from condition of approval #1, the amendment of
condition #2 to include the language “or equivalent as approved by the City”, and to strike the
language “consent” from condition of approval #9. The motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Wall
voting in opposition.
ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to open and continue the item to the next
meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 5. CITY COMMISSION/DRB MEETING DEBRIEF (Continued from 8/25/10) (Taylor)
Mr. Taylor apologized for his absences through the summer. He suggested opening and
continuing the item to the next meeting of the DRB.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to open and continue the item to the next
meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 6. 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 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
________________________________
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem
City of Bozeman Design Review Board