HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-26 2_216-271_Costco Gasoline Conditional Use Permit_Certificate of Appropriateness_Deviations #Z-07012
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV #Z-07012
MEETING DATE: Monday, February 26 2007 at 6:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approve the Costco Gasoline Conditional
Use and Certificate of Appropriateness application with deviations (#Z-07012) as conditioned by
Planning Staff.
BACKGROUND: Representative Barghausen Engineers submitted a Conditional Use Permit
Application and Certificate of Appropriateness application with deviations, to allow the construction
of a members only retail fueling facility at 2505 Catron Street. The application is a conditional use
permit as Automobile Fuels Sales is listed as a conditional use in the “B-2” District. Vehicular access
to the site would be provided by two existing drive accesses along Catron Street.
Two deviations are requested with this application: 1) Section 18.40.060 .B “Automobile Fuel Sales”
to allow the canopy to exceed the required height (18’) by 2 foot 9 inches, and 2) 18.42.150.D.4
“Gas Pump Area Lighting” to allow the average illuminance for the pump island area with light
surroundings to exceed the required standard (10 foot candles) by 1.11 footcandles.
Both the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Design Review Board (DRB), and staff
recommend overall conditional approval of this application with support of the requested deviation
for canopy height and without support for the requested deviation from the lighting standards. The
project as conditioned by staff would allow the deviation for additional canopy height and would not
allow the deviation from the lighting standards due to proposed condition #5 on page 15 of the
staff report.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The Department of Planning is not aware of any unresolved issues for
the proposed development at this time.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Department of Planning is not aware of any fiscal effects for the
proposed development at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior
to the public hearing.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
285
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
COSTCO GASOLINE CUP/COA/DEV ZONING FILE NO. Z07012
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 1
Item: Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness Application
#Z-07012 to allow the construction of a new members only retailing
fueling facility within the existing parking lot at 2505 Catron Street
designated as “Regional Commercial and Services” in the Bozeman
2020 Community Plan and zoned B-2 (Community Business District)
Owners/Applicants: Costco Wholesale
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027
Representative: Barghausen Engineers
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Date: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, February 26, 2007
at 6:00 p.m. Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West
Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is generally located at 2505 Catron Street, in the southwest corner of the existing
Costco Warehouse parking lot. The site is legally described as Lot 1 of Minor Subdivision #210 SE 1/4 &
NE1/4, Section 35, T1S R5E PMM, Gallatin County, Montana and the zoning designation for said property
is B-2 (Community Business District). The property is designated as “Regional Commercial and Services” in
the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The property is approximately 13.731 acres in size. Please refer to the
vicinity map provided below.
286
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 2
PROPOSAL
This Conditional Use Permit/Certificate of Appropriateness Application with Deviations would allow the
construction of a members only retail fueling facility. The application is a conditional use permit as
Automobile Fuels Sales is listed as a conditional use in the “B-2” District. Vehicular access to the site would
be provided by two existing drive accesses along Catron Street. The facility would be accessed from the west
side and be a “one way” island design.
Automobile fuel sales is listed as a conditional use in the B-2 zone according to Chapter 18.18 of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). Two deviations are requested with this application: 1) Section 18.40.060
.B “Automobile Fuel Sales” to allow the canopy to exceed the required height (18’) by 2 foot 9 inches, and
2) 18.42.150.D.4 “Gas Pump Area Lighting” to allow the average illuminance for the pump island area with
light surroundings to exceed the required standard (10 foot candles) by 1.11 footcandles.
Both the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Design Review Board (DRB) recommend overall
conditional approval of this application with support of the requested deviation for canopy height and
without support for the requested deviation from the lighting standards. Their recommended conditions
and comments are included in this report.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The property is zoned B-2 (Community Business District). The intent of the B-2 community business
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 arterials. Please note that this lot is not part
of the Gallatin Center Development (Target, Ross, Bob Ward’s, etc.) The following land uses and zoning
are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Vacant land, County jurisdiction
South: Gallatin Center, zoned B-2 ((Community Business District)
East: Wingate Inn, zoned B-2 (Community Business District)
287
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 3
West: Vacant land, Cattail Creek Subdivision Zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) further west are
residential uses zoned R-O (Residential Office District).
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates this property as “Regional Commercial.” This classification
provides opportunities for activities that serve a multi county region, such as retail, education, health
services, public administration, and tourism. The properties located directly north, south, and east are
designated as “Regional Commercial.” The vacant land to the west is designated as “Industrial and
Neighborhood Commercial.”
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
SECTION 18.34.100 “CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS FOR
CONDITIONAL USE”
In addition to the review criteria below, the City Commission shall, in approving a conditional use permit,
find favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such
use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate
to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity.
The proposed site is adequate in size and topography to accommodate the fueling facility on site in
addition to the principal warehouse building. As conditioned, the yards, parking, and landscaping
properly work within the context of the existing and surrounding sites.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property.
Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof.
With the conditions outlined by staff, the proposed use will not have adverse effects upon the
abutting property. Staff has not received any public comment regarding this proposal.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited
to: regulation of use; special yards, spaces and buffers; special fences, solid fences and walls;
surfacing of parking areas; requiring street, service road or alley dedications and
improvements or appropriate bonds; regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress;
regulation of signs; requiring maintenance of the grounds; regulation of noise, vibrations
and odors; regulation of hours for certain activities; time period within which the proposed
use shall be developed; duration of use; requiring the dedication of access rights; other such
conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient
manner.
Staff has identified, through the review process, recommended project conditions to protect the
public health, safety, and general welfare. Please see the recommended conditions of approval.
SECTION 18.38.080 “DEVIATION FROM OVERLAY OR UNDERLYING ZONING
REQUREMENTS”
Section 18.30.080 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. In the discussion below, Staff evaluated the project proposal in light of these criteria.
288
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 4
A. Deviations will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that
produced by the existing standards.
Deviation #1, Section 18.40.060 .B “Automobile Fuel Sales” to allow the canopy to exceed the
required height
The Commission had given previous direction to the applicant that the proposed fueling canopy should
follow the same general architectural patterns and materials that currently exist throughout the Gallatin
Center. As such, the applicant has proposed a low sloping gable roof for the canopy. In order to have a
pitched roof on the canopy the applicant is requesting a deviation from the maximum height required
for service canopies (18’). Staff is supportive of the additional height based upon the condition for
higher quality design and high quality roofing material. A pitched roof will further this canopy from the
flat roofed standard Costco canopy. The DOP strictly discourages franchise architecture. DRB and
staff recommends that the canopy be of open post and beam steel construct with accent lighting and
that the canopy supports be all masonry and include a minimum of three types of masonry in order to
provide higher quality natural materials and more closely relate to the main Costco building and other
buildings in the area. A final material samples and color board will be required with the final site plan
submittal for the review and approval of staff.
Deviation #2, 18.42.150.D.4 “Gas Pump Area Lighting” to allow the average illuminance for the
pump island area with light surroundings to exceed the required standard (10 foot candles) by
1.11 footcandles.
Staff finds that any lighting above the required standard for gas pump island areas would not produce an
environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards. The
close proximity to a residential area (Cattail Subdivision), the location on a local street (Catron Street),
and the already existing commercial area ambient light levels do not present a situation where additional
site lighting would produce a superior environment.
B. Deviations will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.30 Bozeman
Entryway Corridor Overlay District.
Deviation #1, Section 18.40.060 .B “Automobile Fuel Sales” to allow the canopy to exceed the
required height
The canopy as conditioned with the additional 2’ 9” in height would ensure a high quality of
development in the corridor that will enhance the impression and enjoyment of the community. The
canopy as conditioned would improve circulation in the Costco area, improve the landscaping, signage
and access to the site.
Deviation #2, 18.42.150.D.4 “Gas Pump Area Lighting” to allow the average illuminance for the
pump island area with light surroundings to exceed the required standard (10 foot candles) by
1.11 footcandles.
Additional lighting for the gas pump area would not enhance the impression and enjoyment of the
community.
C. Deviations will be consistent with the adopted Design Objectives Plan.
289
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 5
Deviation #1, Section 18.40.060 .B “Automobile Fuel Sales” to allow the canopy to exceed the
required height
The DOP strictly discourages franchise architecture. A gabled pitched roof will further this canopy
from the flat roofed standard Costco canopy. The Commission had given previous direction to the
applicant that the proposed fueling canopy should follow the same general architectural patterns and
materials that currently exist throughout the Gallatin Center. As such, the applicant has proposed a low
sloping gable roof for the canopy. In order to have a pitched roof on the canopy the applicant is
requesting a deviation from the maximum height required for service canopies (18’). Staff is supportive
of the additional height based upon the condition for higher quality design and high quality roofing
material. DRB and staff recommends that the canopy be of open post and beam steel construct with
accent lighting and that the canopy supports be all masonry and include a minimum of three types of
masonry in order to provide higher quality natural materials and more closely relate to the main Costco
building and other buildings in the area. A final material samples and color board will be required with
the final site plan submittal for the review and approval of staff.
Deviation #2, 18.42.150.D.4 “Gas Pump Area Lighting” to allow the average illuminance for the
pump island area with light surroundings to exceed the required standard (10 foot candles) by
1.11 foot candles.
The additional lighting requested is not in conformance with the DOP. The DOP states “Light levels
should be sufficient for safety. However light spill onto adjacent properties and into the night sky
should be minimized.” While the applicant has met the criteria for full cutoff fixtures any additional
light above the standard does not minimize the potential for light spill onto adjacent properties and into
the night sky.
SECTION 18.34.090 “SITE PLAN AND MASTER SITE PLAN CRITERIA”
The City Commission, in approving a conditional use permit, shall review the application against the
review requirements of 18.34.090 including the following:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including
the “Regional Commercial.”” land use designation. Specific goals related to the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan include the following:
Chapter 4.9.1, Objective 3. Continue the entryway overlay design review programs to ensure
aesthetically pleasing development on major entrances into the City.
This project has been subject to design review and a review for conformance the adopted Design
Objectives Plan. As conditioned this project will be an aesthetically pleasing development in one of
the most prominent commercial areas within the entryway corridor. .
Chapter 4.9.1, Objective 5. Achieve an environment through urban design that creates,
maintains, and enhances the City’s industrial, commercial, and institutional areas..
This project as conditioned will enhance the Costco site and surrounding area in one of the most
prominent commercial areas within the entryway corridor. .
Chapter 4.9.1, Objective 6. Develop infill within the existing area of the City rather than
developing land requiring expansion of the City’s area..
290
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 6
This proposal is an infill project. This fueling facility will be located in an existing parking area that
greatly exceeds the City existing parking standards. Staff recommends that the area of the parking
stalls removed for the installation of the fueling facility not be replaced with parking, but with
additional green space, public open space, and landscaping.
Chapter 4.9.4. Goal. Public Landscaping and Architecture—Enhance the urban
appearance and environment through the use of architectural excellence, landscaping, trees
and open space.
This proposal as conditioned will provide architectural excellence and additional landscaping, trees,
and open space to a current parking lot.
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:
• Per Section 18.34.100.C, “City Commission Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use
Permits,” the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all
general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure.
• Per Section 18.34.100.C, “City Commission Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use
Permits,” all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use, shall
apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be binding upon
the owner of the land, his successor and assigns, shall be consented to in writing, and shall be
recorded as such with the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office by the property owner prior to
the issuance of any building permits, final site plan approval or commencement of the
conditional use.
• 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.
o 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.
• 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.
• Section 18.38.050.F requires all mechanical equipment to be screened. Rooftop equipment
should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened
with walls, fencing or plant materials.
291
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 7
• Section 18.42.130 requires all fences to be maintained with the finished side out. All fence
details shall be noted in the final site plan.
• Section 18.42.170 requires the size of the trash receptacle to be appropriately sized for the use
and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also
be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy
of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and
enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved in writing by the City
Sanitation Division (phone: 582-3236) prior to final site plan approval.
• Sections 18.42.150 requires a lighting plan for all on-site lighting including wall-mounted lights
on the building must be included in the final site plan submittal. Lighting cut-sheets shall be
provided with the final site plan.
• Section 18.48.050.C, 18.48.050.E, 18.48.060 and 18.78.100.C state that the final landscape plan
must meet all of the minimum landscape standards, fulfill the necessary points and be signed
and certified by a landscape professional.
• Section 18.52.060 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 additional on-site signage.
• The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned and labeled with a legend of linetypes and symbols
used provided.
• Existing water/sewer/storm mains and services shall be depicted accurately upon the final site
plan.
• A Stormwater 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) and include calculations for proposed storm drain pipe in accordance with City of
Bozeman design standards. A stormwater maintenance plan shall also be provided.
• A typical curb detail (catch and/or spill) and typical asphalt paving section detail shall be
provided upon the final site plan.
• Existing parking lot striping shall be removed where applicable and replaced with new striping
to accommodate the new parking layout.
• 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 infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes.
• 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
All other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations must be followed. A building permit is
292
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 8
required for all improvements.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
The proposed canopy location is acceptable. Staff would prefer if the canopy were located more to
the interior of the Costco site. Parking will be removed with this proposal and thus opportunities
for additional landscaping and green space on site is possible. Staff recommends a condition that
any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not be replaced and that additional
outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site. As mentioned above the
proposed underground fuel tank location would eliminate existing maturing green space. Staff
recommends a condition that the underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures
be moved outside of the existing landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions
The existing drive accesses for Costco would also serve this additional use. After review of the
applicant’s materials regarding circulation for the site and existing conditions on site staff
recommends a condition that the drive aisle closest to the southeast access to the Costco site be
closed with curb and gutter and landscaped to match the existing parking lot landscaping. The
applicant proposes a one way fueling facility with motorists entering from the west side and exiting
the east side of the facility. Overall circulation should be directed to the interior of the parking lot
or to the secondary entrance on Catron for fueling. Costco states that approximately 50% of fuel
customers fuel before shopping. As such having customers enter from the second (westernmost)
access along Catron would be ideal. The second best access to the fueling facility would be from the
main access (easternmost along Catron Street) and drive aisles along the building frontage. With
additional pedestrian crosswalks and/or enhanced entrance plaza area and pedestrian traffic entering
the store most customers will find the path of least resistance will be to enter the site from the
western access along Catron.
The proposed fueling facility will eliminate 102 existing spaces and the applicant proposes to replace
28 of those parking spaces. This is in direct conflict with the DOP guideline page 30 J.1 to
“Minimize the number of cars parked on site.” Staff recommends a condition that any parking
spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not be replaced and that additional outdoor
public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress
Pedestrian ingress and egress will be provided by to the site by the existing sidewalks along Catron
Street. Vehicular access will be from the existing drive accesses along Catron.
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 plan will be evaluated for points with the Final Site Plan. The proposed underground
fuel tank location would eliminate existing maturing green space. Staff recommends a condition that
the underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures be moved outside of the
existing landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street. The proposal includes new
landscaping areas within the parking area in lieu of parking spaces. The Costco store based upon
square footage requires 414 parking spaces; the Costco store has 683 existing parking spaces. The
proposed fueling facility will eliminate 102 spaces and the applicant proposes to replace 28 of those
parking spaces. Staff recommends a condition that any parking spaces removed to accommodate
the fueling facility not be replaced and that additional outdoor public and green space be provided in
lieu of parking on site.
293
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 9
8. Open space
The DOP encourages additional green space and open space on site. Staff recommends a condition
that any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not be replaced and that
additional outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site.
9. Building location and height
Staff is recommending approval of the requested deviation for increased height in the canopy in
order to accommodate a pitched roof on the structure. The fueling facility includes six drive lanes
with three pump islands. This configuration does not lend itself to bifurcating the canopy or another
alternate design. The size of the proposed canopy is in scale with the size of the parking lot and the
main Costco building and is a subordinate element on site.
The proposed canopy location is acceptable. Staff would prefer if the canopy were located more to
the interior of the Costco site. Parking will be removed with this proposal and thus opportunities
for additional landscaping and green space on site is possible. Staff recommends a condition that
any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not be replaced and that additional
outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site. As mentioned above the
proposed underground fuel tank location would eliminate existing maturing green space. Staff
recommends a condition that the underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures
be moved outside of the existing landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street.
10. Setbacks
The setbacks in the B-2 zone for structures are 7 feet from Catron Street and 25 feet for parking
and loading areas. Staff recommends a condition that the underground tanks and associated
concrete curbing and enclosures be moved outside of the existing landscaping area between the
parking lot and Catron Street.
11. Lighting
Staff recommends that all existing and proposed lighting shall conform to code requirements and be
full cut-off. Cut sheets are required with the Final Site Plan. The applicant is requesting a deviation
to exceed the lighting standards for service canopies. Staff finds no reason to support the proposed
deviation. The canopy will be within a direct site line of residential development in the Cattail Creek
Subdivision. Lighting code requirements are noted in the DRC code provisions.
The DOP on page 55 D.1 states that indirect lighting is preferred for signage. The guideline goes on
to say that a warm light similar to daylight is appropriate. The applicant does propose indirect
lighting, but fluorescent lighting is proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant use gooseneck
style or another type of indirect light that does not incorporate a fluorescent light.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities
The applicant will need to provide any utility easements for any service lines that cross this property
if any. Current utilities and services are provided to the site.
13. Site surface drainage
This proposal will utilize the existing storm water system on site.
14. Loading and unloading areas
Loading and unloading for this use are currently proposed for the Catron street frontage. . Costco
294
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 10
proposes that the underground fuel tanks for the facility be located inside of an existing maturing
landscape area between the Costco parking lot and Catron Street. Staff does not see the merit in
this tank location as it is in direct conflict with the DOP. Staff recommends a condition that the
underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures be moved outside of the existing
landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street.
15. Grading
Minimal grading will be required on the site. However, if needed, grading will be required to route
water to the storm water detention areas.
16. Signage
All new signage shall require a sign permit and shall be included with the Final Site Plan submittal.
17. Screening
All rooftop, ground, and wall-mounted mechanical equipment will have to be screened. Also, all
dumpsters require a trash enclosure with the location subject to review and approval by the City
Sanitation Division.
SECTION 18.30.060.A DESIGN OBJECTIVES PLAN (DOP) CRITERIA
1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14 of the Design Objectives Plan (DOP))
A. Green Space: The first guideline of the DOP on page 11 under Green Space A..1 is to preserve
existing green space in a development whenever feasible. The proposed underground fuel tank
location would eliminate existing maturing green space. Staff recommends a condition that the
underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures be moved outside of the existing
landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street. The proposal includes new landscaping
areas within the parking area in lieu of parking spaces. The Costco store based upon square footage
requires 414 parking spaces; the Costco store has 683 existing parking spaces. The proposed fueling
facility will eliminate 102 spaces and the applicant proposes to replace 28 of those parking spaces.
Staff recommends a condition that any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility
not be replaced and that additional outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on
site.
B. Auto Connections: The DOP encourages direct automobile access between properties. Access for
the fueling facility is provided by existing access points from Catron Street and existing internal
parking lot drive aisles. No new drive accesses onto public streets are proposed.
C. Pedestrian & Bicycle Connections: The DOP states that convenient pedestrian and bikeway
connections among abutting properties and regional and pedestrian bikeway circulation systems
should be provided. Costco installed a gravel fines trail along its western property boundary during
the development of the original store. At that time the trail section did not connect to any other
trail sections. Recent development of the Gallatin Center properties located to the south of Costco
have brought an asphalt trail down the western boundary of the Gallatin Center property to Catron
Street. Staff recommends that Costco upgrade their trail section with an overlay of asphalt and
provide improvements to the crossing of Catron Street and a bridge crossing of Catron Creek to the
north in order to provide improvements to this regional trail.
D. Street Character: The DOP requires the use of a coordinated landscape design along the street
295
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 11
edge to establish a single identity for the area and to buffer the view of cars in parking areas. Costco
proposes that the underground fuel tanks for the facility be located inside of an existing maturing
landscape area between the Costco parking lot and Catron Street. Staff does not see the merit in
this tank location as it is in direct conflict with the DOP. Staff recommends a condition that the
underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures be moved outside of the existing
landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street.
2. Site Design (pages 15-36)
A. Natural Features: Not applicable. The proposed site is within an existing parking lot.
B. Views: Viewsheds of the mountains to the northeast would be minimally affected by this building.
The proposed height does not exceed 25 feet. The existing building is much taller than the proposed
canopy.
C. Cultural Resources: Not applicable. The proposed site is within an existing parking lot.
D. Topography: Not applicable. The proposed site is within an existing parking lot.
E. Site Drainage: Minimal site grading will be required to direct storm water into the existing storm
water system.
F. Building Placement: The proposed canopy location is acceptable. Staff would prefer if the canopy
were located more to the interior of the Costco site. Parking will be removed with this proposal and
thus opportunities for additional landscaping and green space on site is possible. Staff recommends
a condition that any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not be replaced
and that additional outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site. As
mentioned above the proposed underground fuel tank location would eliminate existing maturing
green space. Staff recommends a condition that the underground tanks and associated concrete
curbing and enclosures be moved outside of the existing landscaping area between the parking lot
and Catron Street.
G. Outdoor Public Spaces: No additional outdoor space is proposed with the application. Staff
recommends a condition that any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not
be replaced and that additional outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on
site.
H. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Systems: Staff recommends that Costco upgrade their trail
section with an overlay of asphalt and provide improvements to the crossing of Catron Street. Due
to a potential increase in internal traffic through the drive aisles that cross directly in front of the
main entrance Staff recommends a condition that additional pedestrian amenities be provided from
the main Costco warehouse entrance into the parking areas.
I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems: Again, the existing drive accesses for Costco would
also serve this additional use. After review of the applicant’s materials regarding circulation for the
site and existing conditions on site staff recommends a condition that the drive aisle closest to the
southeast access to the Costco site be closed with curb and gutter and landscaped to match the
existing parking lot landscaping. The applicant proposes a one way fueling facility with motorists
entering from the west side and exiting the east side of the facility. Overall circulation should be
296
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 12
directed to the interior of the parking lot or to the secondary entrance on Catron for fueling. Costco
states that approximately 50% of fuel customers fuel before shopping. As such having customers
enter from the second (westernmost) access along Catron would be ideal. The second best access to
the fueling facility would be from the main access (easternmost along Catron Street) and drive aisles
along the building frontage. With additional pedestrian crosswalks and/or entrance plaza areas and
pedestrian traffic entering the store, most customers will find the path of least resistance will be to
enter the site from the western access along Catron.
J. Parking Lots: The proposed fueling facility will eliminate 102 existing spaces and the applicant
proposes to replace 28 of those parking spaces. This is in direct conflict with the DOP guideline
page 30 J.1 to “Minimize the number of cars parked on site.” Staff recommends a condition that
any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility not be replaced and that additional
outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site or that the area.
K. . Site Lighting: Staff recommends that existing and proposed lighting shall conform to code
requirements and be full cut-off. Cut sheets are required with the Final Site Plan. The applicant is
requesting a deviation to exceed the lighting standards for service canopies. Staff finds no reason to
support the proposed deviation. The canopy will be within a direct site line of residential
development in the Cattail Creek Subdivision. Lighting code requirements are noted in the DRC
code provisions.
L. Utilities & Service Areas: There are only small garbage receptacles proposed for the fueling
facility. A final detail of the garbage receptacles should be submitted for review and approval with
the final site plan. A modular pre-engineered control building is proposed with the application. The
internal location of the building and landscaping screening proposed seem to be appropriate. As
mentioned above, Costco proposes that the underground fuel tanks for the facility be located inside
of an existing maturing landscape area between the Costco parking lot and Catron Street. Staff does
not see the merit in this tank location as it is in direct conflict with the DOP. Staff recommends a
condition that the underground tanks and associated concrete curbing and enclosures be moved
outside of the existing landscaping area between the parking lot and Catron Street. The fuel tanks
and any venting will require at a minimum landscape screening. The vent pipes should be painted to
blend in with the landscape.
M. Landscape Design: Page PL-1 of the applicant’s submittal materials shows proposed landscaping.
Staff recommends a condition that any parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility
not be replaced and that additional outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on
site. The green space and outdoor public space would be in addition to the proposed landscaping.
Outdoor public space should include a seating area, lighting, and other additional amenities.
N. Buffers: As a code provision, all mechanical equipment locations and screening methods must be
shown on the final plans and elevations. No additional buffers are required exclusive of the parking
lot landscaping and utility (underground tanks and control building) screening.
3. Building Design (pages 37-48)
A. Building & Topography: Again, the site is relatively flat.
B. Building Character: The Commission had given previous direction to the applicant that the
proposed fueling canopy should follow the same general architectural patterns and materials that
297
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 13
currently exist throughout the Gallatin Center. As such, the applicant has proposed a low sloping
gable roof for the canopy. In order to have a pitched roof on the canopy the applicant is
requesting a deviation from the maximum height required for service canopies (18’). Staff is
supportive of the additional height based upon the merits of the design and high quality roofing
material. A pitched roof will further this canopy from the flat roofed standard Costco canopy.
The DOP strictly discourages franchise architecture. DRB and staff recommends that the canopy
be of open post and beam steel construct with accent lighting and that the canopy supports be all
masonry and include a minimum of three types of masonry in order to provide higher quality
natural materials and more closely relate to the main Costco building and other buildings in the
area.
C. Primary Building Entrances: Not applicable. The fueling canopy is an outdoor building element.
D. Street Level Interest: With the conditions outlined by Staff, the canopy, materials/color, outdoor
plaza and seating, landscaping and pedestrian connections would all work together to provide an
acceptable level of interest at the street level.
E. Building Mass & Scale: Staff is recommending approval of the requested deviation for increased
height in the canopy in order to accommodate a pitched roof on the structure. The fueling facility
includes six drive lanes with three pump islands. This configuration does not lend itself to
bifurcating the canopy or another alternate design. The size of the proposed canopy is in scale
with the size of the parking lot and the main Costco building and is a subordinate element on site.
F. Roof Form: The proposed roof is pitched with an open truss detail. The applicants request a
deviation for additional canopy height. Staff is supportive of the additional height based upon the
merits of the design and high quality roofing material. A pitched roof will further this canopy from
the flat roofed standard Costco canopy. The DOP strictly discourages franchise architecture.
G. Building Materials: The primary buildings materials are currently presented as all steel. DRB and
staff recommends that the canopy be of open post and beam steel construct with accent lighting
and that the canopy supports be all masonry and include a minimum of three types of masonry in
order to provide higher quality natural materials and more closely relate to the main Costco
building and other buildings in the area.
H. Building Complex: The canopy should relate to the existing Costco building and to the
surrounding Gallatin Center.
I. Service Canopies: See Building Character B. above. The fueling facility will function as a
subordinate element in the site design.
J. Color: Again, Administrative Design Review Staff is requiring material and color samples prior to
Final Site Plan approval. The proposed bright red steel supports would not be appropriate in the
entryway corridor. Staff recommends that the canopy supports be all masonry and include a
minimum of two types of masonry in order to provide higher quality natural materials and more
closely relate to the main Costco building and other buildings in the area.
K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment: This has already been addressed L. on Page 7 of this report.
Staff will ensure all mechanical equipment is property screened as required by code.
298
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 14
4. Sign Design (pages 49-56)
Costco received a variance with the original construction of their to store to exceed the required signage
allowed on site. The applicant may not increase the amount of signage on site. The applicant proposes
to remove existing signage on the main building in order to allow the two small signs proposed on the
canopy. A sign permit will be required to document this reallocation on site. The DOP on page 55 D.1
states that indirect lighting is preferred for signage. The guideline goes on to say that a warm light
similar to daylight is appropriate. The applicant does propose indirect lighting, but fluorescent lighting
is proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant use gooseneck style or another type of indirect light
that does not incorporate a fluorescent light.
5. Corridor Specific Guidelines
I-90/Frontage Road :
The I-90 and Frontage Road Entryway Corridor guidelines state that pedestrian and bicycle trails should
be provided, to provide site and building improvements to the side of the buildings that face the
interstate, and to reduce the impacts of industrial operations.
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the guidelines for I-90 and the Frontage Road and found the
proposal to generally comply with the principle guidelines outlined for these entryway corridors.
Section 18.34.100 “City Commission Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use Permits”
In addition to the review criteria outlined above, the City Commission shall, in approving a conditional
use permit, find favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such
use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate
to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity.
The proposed site is adequate in size and topography to accommodate small commercial kitchen on
site in addition to office space and an apartment. The yards, parking, and landscaping properly work
within the context of the existing and surrounding sites.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property.
Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof.
With the conditions outlined by staff, the proposed use will not have adverse effects upon the
abutting property. Staff has not received any public comment regarding this proposal.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited
to: regulation of use; special yards, spaces and buffers; special fences, solid fences and walls;
surfacing of parking areas; requiring street, service road or alley dedications and
improvements or appropriate bonds; regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress;
regulation of signs; requiring maintenance of the grounds; regulation of noise, vibrations
and odors; regulation of hours for certain activities; time period within which the proposed
use shall be developed; duration of use; requiring the dedication of access rights; other such
conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient
manner.
299
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 15
Staff has not identified additional conditions, other than those listed below, to protect the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based on the previous analysis, the DRC, DRB, and staff find that the application, with conditions, is in
general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines for the Entryway Corridor Overlay District. The following
conditions of approval are recommended.
1. The number of parking spaces removed to accommodate the fueling facility shall not be replaced
and that additional outdoor public and green space be provided in lieu of parking on site. Outdoor
public space shall include at a minimum one hardscaped area with multiple seating opportunities.
Green space shall be highly landscaped and employ indigenous species and establish a sense of
visual continuity in the site landscape design.
2. The southernmost east/west parking lot drive aisle closest to the southeast access to the Costco site
from Catron Street shall be closed at that entrance with curb and gutter and landscaped to match the
existing parking lot landscaping.
3. The proposed underground fuel storage tanks and associated concrete curbing, venting, and
enclosures shall be relocated outside of the existing landscaping area between the parking lot and
Catron Street and not encroach into any existing mature landscaped area on the exterior of the site.
4. Additional pedestrian amenities shall be provided from the main entrance of the warehouse building
into the parking areas in order to slow traffic and create a safe pedestrian environment. Examples of
the types of appropriate improvements anticipated are: pigmented and scored concrete crosswalks,
colored and scored concrete plaza, bollards, additional pedestrian scale lighting, seating areas, raised
landscaping beds, and other improvement that would make the main building entrance more
friendly and safe for pedestrians.
5. All existing and proposed site and building mounted lighting shall conform to Chapter 18.42.150 of
the Bozeman Municipal Code. The proposed indirect signage lighting on the service canopy shall be
replaced with a gooseneck or other full cutoff indirect lighting that does not incorporate a
fluorescent fixture.
6. The service canopy supports and controller enclosure shall be all masonry and include a minimum
of three types of masonry. All masonry units shall be of integral color.
7. The pedestrian trail section along the property’s westernmost boundary shall be overlaid with
asphalt to City standards for a Type I trail and the applicant in consultation with The City of
Bozeman Parks and Recreation Board, the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Engineering Department,
Planning Department, and the City of Bozeman Parks Superintendent shall provide improvements
to the pedestrian crossing of Catron Street where this trail connects to the Gallatin Center trail
section. Crossing improvements shall include a Type ‘B’ pedestrian crosswalk (Std Dwg 02581-2)
perpendicular to Catron Street with ADA ramps on both sides, signage, crosswalk pedestrian
lighting. An bridge crossing of Catron Creek to the north and completion of the trail section to the
north Costco property boundary shall also be provided. The bridge location and design shall be
submitted to the Planning Department, Engineering Department, City of Bozeman Parks
Superintendent, and Building Department for approval prior to FSP approval. The crosswalk,
bridge, and pedestrian ramps must be ADA compliant and shall be approved as such by the
Engineering Dept as part of FSP approval. The applicant must agree in writing to maintain the
crosswalk at their expense as Catron is a privately maintained street.
8. A color palette including material and color samples shall be provided, for review and approval by
the Planning Office, prior to Final Site Plan approval.
300
#Z-07012 Costco Gasoline CUP/COA/DEV Staff Report 16
9. The service canopy shall be of open post and beam steel construct with accent lighting.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The DRC, DRB, and staff have reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
Application with Deviations to allow the construction of a new members only retailing fueling facility within
the existing parking lot at 2505 Catron Street. Staff recommends to the City Commission approval of said
application with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this Staff Report. Planning Staff has
identified various code provisions that are currently not met by this 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 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.
Attachments: Applicant Submittal for CUP/COA/DEV
Sent To: Costco Wholesale
Attn: Kim Sanford
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027
Barghausen Engineers
Attn: Chris Ferko
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98027
301
DRAFT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. and directed the secretary to
record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Walter Banziger Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Christopher Livingston Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Bill Rea Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Joe Batcheller
Visitors Present
Chris Ferko
Kim Sanford
Sue Doss
Thail Davis
Ed Galliway
Rom Milleson
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2007.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of
January 24, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019 (Bristor)
10 West Main Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Change in Use
Application to allow renovation with an addition and re-use of the existing
structure for retail use and ten condominium units with related site
improvements. (Staff has offered some informal design review comments
for the DRB’s consideration.)
Sue Doss and Thail Davis joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the
Staff Report noting that the DRB had been given a memo describing the proposal as a bump-up
on Main Street. She stated Staff did not think the proposal was subordinate to the existing
structure and there was a drastic difference in building materials causing the proportions of the
building to be lost in the design.
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 1
Ms. Doss stated she thought the upper levels were set back roughly 15 feet. Planner Bristor
responded the setback was measuring at roughly 2 feet.
302
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 2
Mr. Rea asked what the material would be on the parapet where the signage was located as it was
indicated as a brick material on the site plan, but was indicated as something else on the
elevation. Ms. Doss responded that the second story of the Rialto was cream-yellow brick and it
would be difficult to find something that matched the existing, but they would like the material
to be brick. Mr. Rea asked if everything from the front façade to the south would have to be
demolished. Ms. Doss responded that it would have to be demolished and added that some
original materials might be kept, but they would need to be supported.
Mr. Banziger stated that he had based most of his judgments on the photo renderings that were
provided and the design was too full of metal and glass (too modern). He stated the original
portion being maintained would be made to look awkward as proposed. He suggested looking at
the Place Architecture building as they had done a good job of preserving the architectural
elements. He stated the proposal was too out of scale and suggested checking for materials that
would be better suited to the remaining portions of the existing structure.
Mr. Rea stated that he agreed with Mr. Banziger’s comments and his concern was the historic
texture, fabric, and scale of the street. He suggested reviewing the historic guidelines to provide
for a better design. He stated he was also concerned with the pedestrian scale of the building, but
did not have a problem with the proposed height of 55 feet. He suggested moving the existing
2nd story band up to the 55 foot mark, adding the new construction underneath, and looking at the
street level façade to make it more pedestrian sensitive. He stated that other radical options were
available but that he could not support the present proposal as it was contradictory to what the
DRB was seeking in a historic district. He stated the design elements of Main Street were crucial
to Bozeman and thanked the applicant for presenting the proposal to the DRB for informal
comments. He stated he would like to see the historic reader sign (theater marquee) returned to
its location. He added that it looked like there would be serious building code issues that would
need to be addressed and advised the applicant to have the Building Department review the
plans.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost agreed with Mr. Rea and Mr. Banziger. He stated he had seen
radical departures in New York City that had turned out nicely, but he thought the proposal was
missing the mark. He stated that the bold statement being proposed (steel and glass) would not
work with the surrounding historic district. He stated the language and vernacular could work
with the existing materials and a good design could integrate them. He suggested the architect
could maintain the history of the structure while working with the addition to the structure. He
suggested massaging the material pallet so that the uppermost portion worked well with the
middle and lower portions of the structure. He suggested retaining some of the memory of what
the structure had been historically and added that he thought it could be a successful project, but
was not supportive as it had been proposed.
Mr. Batcheller stated the proposal seemed awkward and he did not think the second story would
be appropriate for this location. He suggested using a brick color that was complimentary to the
existing materials. He stated he did not think the proposal was in keeping with the historical
nature of downtown.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated the guidelines
for historic preservation attempted to create a distinction between historic and new fabric and
tried to maintain the sense of scale of what was existing. He stated it seemed there would be a
303
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 3
new two-story building stacked on top of an existing two-story building. He stated the issue had
arisen in the past and he had always been on the side of retaining the historic fabric of the area as
once it was gone it would never come back. He stated that the historic context of the street had
not been addressed and the façade needed to be respected. He stated the zero lot lines on the side
of the structure would need to be addressed; noting the proposed windows on the side. He stated
the imposition of the front façade toward the face of Bozeman was his primary concern and he
did not want to see a second layer of new facades doubling the faces of existing facades. He
stated that one of the reasons that Bozeman was desirable was Main Street. He suggested that he
would not support a proposal that did not adhere to the historic guidelines.
Ms. Davis stated she had gotten the impression that the upper two stories should look completely
different from the existing structure. Chairperson Livingston responded the guidelines clearly
defined preserving the perception of the existing historic building and the proposal did not
maintain the historic perception. He added that he thought there were bigger issues that would
need to be addressed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that if a proposal was well done, but
there was still a distinction between the old and the new, there could be support for such a
project. Ms. Doss stated she appreciated DRB comments and had gotten the impression that the
new portion of the structure had to be obviously different from the existing. Planner Bristor
apologized for the confusion and stated that the Secretary of Interior Standards require all new
construction to be distinguishable from the historic, but should also be compatible; adding that
an example would be that even if brick was used for the proposed addition, it would be unlikely
that it could match the existing, so it would be distinguishable.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Planner Bristor and suggested using new materials, but
remaining complementary to what was existing (he cited the existing Missoula Art Museum in
Missoula, MT).
Chairperson Livingston stated that 15 inches could not be considered a substantial setback for the
popup addition.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed that there should not be a modern addition to the structure and any
addition would need to respect its neighbors in terms of scale and aperture.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 (Bristor)
120 West Main Street (Continued from 1/24/07.)
* A request by Staff to open and continue the proposal until the applicant
submits the materials originally requested by the DRB. If the applicant
would like to keep the City Commission date scheduled for February 26,
2007, Staff would recommend denial.
Chairperson Livingston stated that what the DRB had received in packets was not consistent with
what the DRB had asked the applicant to do at its last meeting. He stated the DRC had seen a six
story proposal and the DRB had received materials inconsistent with that proposal. He stated
that his position would be that either the project would need to be continued to the next meeting
of the DRB so that the correct information could be provided, or the project would be denied.
He stated there was a particular submittal process in place that needed to be observed to provide
for the review process to work. Mr. Mosser responded that he thought the DRB should entertain
a third option and suggested the primary issue was the height issue. He stated that Staff had
304
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 4
given recommendations that sounded like the total redesign of the structure and that the collateral
material had been provided in response to the general open-mindedness of the DRB. He stated
he felt that the new design would give the DRB what they required as proposed (ten-story
structure). He remarked that if the DRB had embraced Staff’s recommendations, the DRB
would have required him to start the process over to accommodate the redesign of the proposal.
He stated his new proposal was an effort to be responsive to the comments of the DRB and that
the context of the structures had not changed; only the height would change. He stated he would
appreciate the opportunity to show the DRB his presentation.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if anything other than what they had requested at the last
meeting should be reviewed by the DRB. Planner Bristor responded that Staff had not reviewed
any of the other proposals put forth by the applicant and would recommend continuance of the
project.
Chairperson Livingston stated that the DRB was available to give feedback to applicants and the
method by which the DRB perceives the process as working had not been abided by. He stated
that the last information the applicant had provided was not consistent with what had been
proposed and previously reviewed by the DRB. He stated that an informal review gave the DRB
the opportunity to provide recommendations on different proposals (4-story, 6-story, etc.) that
would be supported by the DRB during the formal review of the project. He stated the issue at
hand was that the DRB could not make a decision on what had been most recently submitted and
could not choose one of three options to forward to the City Commission. He reiterated that the
proposal could either be continued to the next DRB meeting or denied as proposed. He
suggested the DRB had been eager to see the proposal, but what had been submitted had not
been what was requested.
Mr. Mosser stated Staff recommended changes that would make the proposal entirely different
and asked if the DRB would ignore comments made by Staff if meant a drastic change in the
proposal. Chairperson Livingston responded that he was not saying it was his or the DRB’s
charge to ignore Staff recommendations, but rather to consider them and then make their
recommendations. Mr. Mosser argued that Chairperson Livingston had misstated his charge.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that the DRC always made recommendations to Staff, who
made recommendations to the advisory boards to help them make their decision, and that the city
had reviewed the initial proposal. He stated that the legal review process provided that the DRB
could only review the proposal that had been seen by the other review boards and Staff.
Mr. Mosser asked why Staff could redesign a proposal and no new submittal was required, but as
soon as he redesigned his proposal, it was required that he submit a new proposal. Planner
Bristor cited the Staff report and added that it did not contain any redesign suggestions that
included a height increase.
Chairperson Livingston stated that engagement into the process of submitting drawings for
review entered the applicant into a commitment that they would be building the proposal, as
submitted, with Staff and advisory board conditions of approval.
Planning Director Epple apologized for the proposal being delayed due to procedural dictates
and added that the threshold for requiring a new submittal was when a modification to the
structure increased the mass or height. He stated that the DRB had requested the applicant
provide materials in reference to the six-story building and that Mr. Mosser had misunderstood
305
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 5
that directive. He added that the overlay work on Main Street would not hold up the
development of the proposal even if it were delayed due to the continuance of the DRB meeting.
Mr. Mosser asked if, having gone through this process and liking the stair stepping design he had
most recently submitted, could he have the opportunity to get input from the City Commission;
he wanted to present three scenarios for them to choose from (4 story, 6 story, and 10 story).
Planning Director Epple responded that the City Commission would consider three reviews a
waste of time, and suggested an Informal Application be submitted for the review of the ten-
story structure if that was what the applicant would like to build.
After one last clarification from Chairperson Livingston on whether or not the applicant would
like to continue the proposal, Mr. Mosser expressed his interest in keeping his previously
scheduled City Commission hearing date of February 26, 2007.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Commission for the City Hotel & Residence Club
SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287. The motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the project review was valid and solid given that it was one of the five
or six biggest buildings in the city and would support the motion, but sadly.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with Mr. Rea but was in support of the current motion.
2. Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 (Krueger)
1783 North 19th Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of
Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 6,759 square foot restaurant
including the sale of alcohol and related site improvements.
Associate Planner Brian Krueger reiterated points from the Staff Report and walked the DRB
through some of the modifications that had been done since the last meeting. He stated the
applicant had pulled their formal application so that it was not under constraints for its scheduled
City Commission meeting. He stated the applicant had resubmitted the project, it had been
noticed as a new project, and the applicant had made modifications based on Staff and DRB
comments. He stated the conditions were standard with the exception of revised condition #1
regarding an asphalt overlaid trail connection to the Home Depot site. He stated some of the
conditions had been satisfied, but he had left those conditions to provide for Final Site Plan
approval.
Mr. Milleson stated he would like to review the list of changes that were made to the proposal.
He stated the sidewalk had been extended to provide for the patio being connected to the path.
He stated they had added screening to the mechanical equipment on the roof and it had been
depicted on the elevations. He stated the awning had been changed to reflect a more edgy,
contemporary design. He stated the footprint of the patio had been increased and the edge
pattern had been redesigned. He stated the back of the building (west façade) included more
articulation and the lighting would match the rest of the structure; adding that the signage had
been removed from that façade. He stated that the display windows had been increased to a two
foot depth and the DRB had received details in their packet information. He stated that stone had
been instituted at the base of the columns and a cut-sheet had been added to the submittal that
depicted the proposed light fixtures. He added that the current submittal was very different from
306
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 6
the original submittal. He assured the DRB that there was no other Buffalo Wild Wings
establishment that would look anything like this proposal.
Mr. Banziger asked if the original elevations had garage doors opening to the inside. Mr.
Milleson responded that he was unsure. Mr. Batcheller responded that the north elevation had
been depicted as having some type of rolling doors that opened to the interior, but the previous
plans did not depict that type of entrance. Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant intended those
doors be open. Mr. Milleson responded that he did not think they were intended to be opened.
Mr. Banziger asked the appearance of the newest franchise design for Buffalo Wild Wings. Mr.
Milleson responded it would be a yellow and black checkered box.
Mr. Batcheller asked if the patio would be enclosed. Mr. Milleson responded that it would not.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation
of approval for Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 with Staff conditions. The motion
carried 4-1 with Chairperson Livingston in opposition.
Mr. Rea stated that this proposal was the best they had seen for this particular building and he
appreciated the effort that had gone into it. He stated that he encouraged the applicant to use
something other than EFIS at the parting bead and suggested the use of stone. He stated he
supported Staff recommendations.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments and that he liked the
current proposal better than what he had seen thus far. He stated he had one concession and
struggled with how the 500 square feet of material on the overhead worked. He suggested the
material be modified. Mr. Rea suggested the new material not be EFIS.
Mr. Batcheller stated that he agreed with previous DRB comments and the current design was
one he could live with, though he would like to see something specifically designed for the site,
the applicant had done a good job of addressing the DRB’s concerns.
Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the design had come a long way, but the basic “cake
decoration” of the proposal had been a lengthy process. He stated the DRB had suggested
modifications that would change the floor plan to a certain degree and he had come to the
realization that a franchise was a box and there would need to be a way to decorate the box to fit
into Bozeman. He stated he wished the franchise had been more willing to be design oriented.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he felt it was still franchise
architecture dressed up. He stated that the applicant had made efforts to address previous
comments from DRB and suggested the opportunity would have been great to open the structure
to the patio.
3. Costco Gasoline CUP/COA #Z-07012 (Krueger)
2505 Catron Street
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow
the construction of a members-only fueling facility within the existing
parking lot.
Chris Ferko, Kim Sanford, and Ed Galliway joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger
307
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 7
presented the Staff Report noting the location of the project and that everyone was probably
familiar with it. He noted that Costco had come in before the Gallatin Center site but still
resembled the Gallatin Center development. He stated the applicant had requested two
deviations: 1) the service canopy lighting exceed the allowable 10 foot candle average, and 2) the
applicant be allowed to exceed the height limitations of the canopy. He stated Staff did not
support the requested deviation for the lighting as the location did not lend itself to a brighter
canopy due to the adjacent residential uses and Staff supported the request for a deviation for
height provided the applicant modify the canopy design. He stated Staff would like to see the
Design Objectives Plan addressed by the institution of a seating area and site landscaping. He
stated Staff recommended closing a drive isle that was close to the entrance to direct traffic
through the site and provide a safe environment and help to resolve difficulties at a congested
intersection. He stated Staff recommended pushing the storage tanks more toward the interior of
the site while maintaining the mature existing landscaping. He stated Staff would like to see
additional scored or pigmented sidewalks incorporated on the site and suggested the institution
of a plaza area or other additional pedestrian amenities. He stated the building mounted lighting
on Costco was nonconforming and the applicant had been asked to shield their lighting to bring it
into conformance. He stated any lighting on signage must be a warm toned light if it would be
located in the Entryway Corridor and some existing signage would be removed to accommodate
the new signage on the gasoline facility. He stated the red painted steel supports proposed for
the canopy should be masonry instead to remain in keeping with the existing Costco structure.
He stated that the existing trail along Catron Creek had been relocated and had not been used or
maintained and added that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust had suggested the relocation of the
trail to the other side of Catron Creek to provide for its connection to the newly completed
Gallatin Center trail. He stated Staff’s suggestion was to pave the existing trail and provide a
connection to the trail across Catron Creek to the north.
Mr. Ferko stated that the applicant had gotten a Zone Code Amendment to allow the gasoline
facility to be located on this site. He stated this would not be typical gas station with a
convenience store and loud signage as it was for members only and would not need to be located
on the front of the lot. He stated the hours of operation for the facility would be roughly the
same as the warehouse hours. He stated there was a screen that could be put in the existing
fixtures to reduce the glare of the lighting. He stated that stamped or colored asphalt would be
instituted on the site to delineate those pedestrian crossings (per Staff conditions). He stated that
he had met with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and they had discussed trail construction options
that included a bridge and the applicant would be willing to provide that. He stated that the
applicant would be willing to reconfigure the parking stalls, but would prefer not to have
pedestrians between the gas station and the loading docks as people were likely to smoke in
those areas; adding that the landscaping could be located in a better area. He stated he would
like flexibility in the design of the hardscaped area with multiple seating areas and they would be
willing to work with Staff.
Mr. Galliway stated they had dealt with these situations on many occasions and he had been
involved in the other Costco projects. He presented a rendering that addressed the pitched roof
design of the canopy bay. He stated the metal facia panel proposed would wrap around all four
sides of the structure. He stated the steel structural truss system proposed (rust colored) would
tie the proposed structure with the existing warehouse. He stated the design was fairly standard
for Costco and would contain 12 bays. He stated there would be a slight overhang that could
contain a fixture with indirect light.
308
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 8
Mr. Ferko stated that the city’s code was based on the 1998 IEC requirements and the 2001 IEC
had been changed to allow for higher than 10 foot candles with better opportunities to focus
lighting and reduce glare and light pollution. He stated that Costco had been proactive to find
solutions with regard to lighting issues. He stated the area lights underneath the canopy had
specially designed lenses that would focus the light directly under the canopy. He stated that the
applicant did not want to compromise safety to provide for less light pollution. He stated the
deviation request was for an 11.9 foot candles instead of 10 foot candles. He presented the DRB
with a lighting study depicting the differences in distances and strengths between a 10 foot
candle and an 11 foot candle adding that lighting technology had been improved since the
institution of the lighting ordinance. He noted the location of an industrial piece of property next
to the site that would buffer the residential area once it was developed.
Mr. Batcheller asked the hours of operation. Mr. Ferko responded it would be roughly 6:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Batcheller asked the plans for the trail linkage to the north. Planner Krueger
responded that a site plan review of the property, once it was annexed to the city, would
accommodate a link to the existing trail system. Mr. Galliway added that there appeared to be a
20 foot utility easement that the trail was within and asphalting the trail would need to be
approved. Planner Krueger responded that it was common to pave the trail over existing
easements.
Mr. Banziger asked what access would be closed off. Planner Krueger directed the DRB to the
location of that entrance. Mr. Banziger asked what the controller enclosure would look like. Mr.
Ferko responded it would be a 6 X 6 prefabricated enclosure that would house only mechanical
equipment (unmanned) and would be located within landscaping and remain in keeping with the
existing warehouse and proposed gasoline facility.
Mr. Rea asked the reason the tanks met the landscaping on the south side of the site. Mr. Ferko
responded that the landscaping had been placed there for the protection of the service truck, but
could be moved. Mr. Rea asked if rubber had been considered for use on the trail system.
Planner Krueger responded that it had been used in other cities, but none had been proposed for
Bozeman; he added that two standards were used to provide for trail construction. Mr. Banziger
added that the entrance to the physical plant had instituted previous concrete and people could
see how it was holding up to the elements. Mr. Rea asked if the applicant would be amenable to
the institution of a bridge. Mr. Ferko responded the applicant would be amenable.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if landscaping would be in lieu of parking or if it would need
to be replaced somewhere else. Mr. Krueger responded that Staff would like to see the
replacement of the net area of parking stalls with the same net area of landscaping to provide for
additional open space areas. Mr. Galliway stated roughly 96 stalls would be eliminated with the
institution of the gasoline facility on the site and the applicant would prefer not to remove the
extra 28 spaces due to the loss of parking that erecting the facility would cause. Mr. Ferko added
that the parking calculations did not seem to be meant for existing structures, but for new
structures. Mr. Krueger added that a CUP gave authority to Staff and the Commission to
institute conditions of approval. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant’s design crew
had worked in Bozeman. Mr. Galliway responded they had done the Bozeman Costco design.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the design of the fascia could be modified. Mr. Galliway
responded that it would be more expensive due to the internal design of the structure. Ms.
Sanford added that the sign would also need to be hung there. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked
if the canopy was sprinkled. Mr. Galliway responded it would not be sprinkled. Vice
309
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 9
Chairperson Pentecost asked if the ceiling of the canopy would be casting light. Mr. Galliway
responded the fixtures would be recessed and only ambient light would be evident. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked why they were requesting additional foot candles if the difference
was imperceptible. Mr. Ferko responded it was for safety reasons. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
asked if the control booth would ever be manned. Ms. Sanford responded that it was not
manned, but would have regular maintenance done by an employee.
Chairperson Livingston asked what landscaping would typically be installed on a Costco site.
Ms. Sanford listed types of landscaping that are generally instituted on their sites and added that
the tanks would be relocated 15 feet to the north and twenty feet of additional landscaping would
be placed in that location. Chairperson Livingston asked what the standard light level for Costco
was. Ms. Sanford stated the light level would be 30-40 foot candles where typical lighting would
be 60-80 foot candles. Chairperson Livingston asked what a particular design feature would be
made of. Mr. Galliway responded it would be tube metal. Chairperson Livingston asked if there
would be a gutter. Mr. Galliway responded there would be gutters and downspouts. Chairperson
Livingston asked how consumers of the gasoline station proceeded from there to the warehouse
facility for shopping and suggested some sort of connectivity to the store to provide for drop off
of customers while the other spouse was shopping.
Mr. Banziger asked why it would be alright for vehicles to interfere with the loading and service
area and not pedestrians. Mr. Galliway responded that the hours of operation would prevent
interference and his concern was with the landscaping being damaged by the service vehicles.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for Costco Gasoline CUP/COA #Z-07012 with the modification of Staff
condition of approval #6 to add the language “and controller enclosure” and change the
requirement from “2” to “3” types of masonry, and the addition of condition #9 to include
language that the canopy structure be “open post and beam steel construct with accent lighting”.
The motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Livingston in opposition.
Mr. Banziger suggested an amendment to the motion to include that the applicant provide
screening to the air conditioning unit. He suggested that there would not be a need for the fascia
all the way around the structure as the sign could be displayed in a different location. He stated
reduced parking spaces and more green spaces with less impervious surfaces would be preferable
as development was headed in that direction. He stated he was concerned with the wearability
with the stamped pavement as it did not last long and was difficult to maintain; he suggested a
more durable material. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding the reduction of lighting levels
and non-support of the requested deviation.
Mr. Rea stated Staff was being generous with regard to the number of parking stalls they were
requiring be removed from the proposal. He stated it would be a gas station and not a
“members-only gas spa” with ambient lighting and added that parking would be an issue. He
stated he agreed with Staff regarding the lighting request as Bozeman was a dark sky city. He
stated the control enclosure seemed to be the thumb sticking out in front of a beautiful
architectural gas spa. He stated he was fine with the proposed trail and added that he appreciated
what Costco brought to the community and how it was its own internal community.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments and he would have made
310
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 10
the same motion if he hadn’t. He stated he thought Bozeman’s Costco should be better because
it should not resemble any other Costco. He stated he did not support the request for additional
foot candles as he would just be gassing up the car which did not require an exceptional amount
of lighting.
Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with previous DRB comments.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was concerned that there would be a landscaped island left too
small to accommodate vegetation if the pumps were relocated; he added there seemed to be too
much interaction between vehicles and landscape. He stated his other concern was the canopy as
it was a standard Costco canopy with a truss on top of it and Bozeman deserved something better
than that. He suggested people in Bozeman liked to know that the design of their Costco was
different than every other Costco. He stated the applicants real logic was that no matter how full
the establishment, there would still be open stalls. He added that he thought a pathway from the
gas station to the warehouse would be valuable.
ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review
Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public available for comment at this time.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
311
312
313
Page 3
(Certificate of Appropriateness Checklist 2 Prepared 11/25/03; revised on 9/8/04)
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATNESS CHECKLIST 2
If a project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or the Entryway Corridor Overlay District, and
DOES NOT qualify for review as a Sketch Plan; Reuse, Change of Use or Further Development of a Site Developed Before
9-3-91; or Amendment/Modification of a Plan Approved On or After 9-3-91, this checklist shall be used. See Section
18.34.050 (Sketch Plan Review), Section 18.34.150 (Amendments to Sketch and Site Plans) or Section 18.34.170 (Reuse,
Change in Use or Further Development of Sites Developed Prior to the Adoption of the Ordinance Codified in This Title),
BMC.
These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked No or N/A (not applicable)
must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to
granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall
be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review
authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission:
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Information Yes No N/A
1.One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such
additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will
clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise
recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall be
mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address, elevation
direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information
2.Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal
records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration
3. Materials and color schemes to be used
4.Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant s
proposed alterations
5. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations
6. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department
7.Description of any applicant-requested deviation(s) and a narrative explanation as to how the
requested deviation(s) will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute
to the overall historic character of the community
B. Entryway Corridor Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District,
information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate
of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the
planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its
determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission:
Entryway Corridor Overlay District Information Yes No N/A
1.Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant s
proposed alterations
2. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department
3.If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in Section 18.66.050
(Deviations), BMC, the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic
material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as
to enable the City Commission to make the determination that the deviation will produce an
environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing
standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.30 (Entryway
Corridor Overlay District), BMC.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
314
1 10276.002.doc
COSTCO GASOLINE OVERVIEW
2505 Catron Street
Bozeman, MT
October 2007
(Updated January 2007)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Costco Gasoline facility is designed to be a fully automated self-serve fueling station for Costco
members only as an accessory use to the existing Bozeman Costco warehouse. Hours of operation are
typically 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., with abbreviated hours on the weekend. The stations have proven to be highly
appreciated by Costco members as a fast and convenient alternative to purchase gasoline at a fair price.
All equipment installed is of the latest technology with environmental protection and monitoring systems
that typically exceed all regulatory requirements.
The purpose of this document is to provide detailed information regarding the design and operational
features of the Costco gasoline facility, the regulations, and regulatory agencies that govern retail-fueling
facilities.
II. FACILITY DESIGN:
The Costco gasoline facility consists of the following features:
Islands: The facility consists of four islands with two double-sided gasoline dispensers on each island
allowing for 16 automobile fueling positions. Regular and Super Unleaded grades of gasoline are sold.
Canopy: The 32-foot by 88-foot structure is a steel-framed canopy, with colors and signs coordinating
with the main Costco warehouse. Raised concrete islands are under the canopy, with concrete-filled, steel
reinforced posts to assist in minimizing any impact to the dispensers.
Controller Enclosure: A 6 x 12-foot steel cabinet is located near the canopy and underground tanks.
This houses the main power subpanel, fuel system monitors, the dispenser interface unit, the submersible
pump variable speed controllers, and the monitoring system console. The cabinet also houses the
equipment manuals and the station’s Maintenance and Operations Manual, including maintenance and
equipment records. An air conditioner mounted on the side of the power room would have a preset
thermostat to maintain a safe operating temperature for the equipment.
Autogas Card Reading System on Dispensers: A Costco membership card activates the gasoline
dispensers. Payment is by a debit or credit payment card only. No cash is accepted. The card
system/reader located on the dispensers has full instructions to Costco members.
315
2 10276.002.doc
III. FUELING EQUIPMENT:
Double Walled Fiberglass Fuel Storage Tanks and Piping: The three (3) 30,000 gallon Fluid
Containment double walled tanks are made of fiberglass due to its corrosion resistance and plasticity.
Underground tanks have overfill protection and allow for gravity return of undispensed fuel. Product
piping is double-wall flexible (HDPE) piping for corrosion resistance and plasticity. Supply piping is
contained in a rigid geoduct, which offers triple containment. The pipeline is installed in a continuous
length (without breaks or fittings) between each dispenser location. All connections to the tank and the
dispensers are flexible. These connections are made with flexible connectors, which are intended to
prevent rupture from any form of movement.
The tanks are equipped with overfill protection system that prevents overfilling of the tanks. The tanks
are equipped with an overfill alarm that will visually and audibly alert the delivery technician at a 90%
full condition to avoid tank overfills. The tanks are also equipped with spill containment systems to
capture small releases that may occur when the delivery is complete and the delivery hose is
disconnected. The spill containment system prevents the release from reaching the backfill and the
product is returned to the tank. Overfill prevention and spill containment equipment is required by the
EPA UST regulations. Product piping is double-wall flexible (HDPE) piping for gasoline compatibility,
corrosion resistance, and plasticity. Product piping is contained in a flexible duct, which offers the ability
to capture any release in the unlikely event one should occur and the release would escape the
continuously monitored secondary containment system. Unlike rigid fiberglass product delivery systems,
the supply piping for Costco is installed in a continuous length (without breaks or fittings) between each
dispenser location. The vent piping and vapor recovery piping are double walled.
The sumps on the tanks (fill sump and turbine sump) are continuously monitored. All connections to the
tanks and the dispensers are made with flexible connectors, which are intended to prevent rupture and
provide additional flexibility in the piping system from any form of movement.
Tank Installation: The tanks are secured in place with anchoring straps (tie-downs) connected to
concrete hold down deadmen. The entire tank excavation hole will be backfilled with pea gravel and
capped with an 8-inch thick reinforced concrete slab (overburden). The tie-downs, together with the
overburden will overcome any possible buoyancy factors and resist buckling under hydrostatic pressures.
The equipment is installed, tested, certified and registered by State Certified Installation Contractors
according to specific construction guidelines and requirements.
Containment Sumps: A containment sump is installed at the tank fills, turbines and beneath each
dispenser to contain fuel from leakage or overflows or water intrusion. If product is detected in these
sumps, sensors will shut down the system.
Stage II Vapor Recovery System: This advanced system prevents 95 percent of gasoline vapor from
release into the atmosphere during refueling of the customers’ vehicles in accordance with current
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Order while providing the most rapid dispensing
allowed.
Stage I Vapor Recovery: This system recovers 98 percent of vapors that are displaced during the
refueling of the underground storage tanks by the truck-trailers, in accordance with CARB Executive
Order VR-101-C. The Vapor Recovery system includes the latest CARB required Enhanced Vapor
Recovery equipment to reduce fugitive emissions from the delivery system.
316
3 10276.002.doc
IV. EMERGENCY CONTROL EQUIPMENT/SYSTEMS:
Tank Monitor and Leak Detection System: The Veeder-Root TLS350 tank level monitor and leak
detection system operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Hydrostatic sensors are located in the interstitial
tank space of each tank, allowing the system to monitor tank integrity for both the inner and outer walls of
the tanks. All sumps and piping systems are continuously monitored to monitor the integrity of the piping
system. The level gauges at each tank provide a continuous monitoring of the level of gasoline in the
tanks, for overfill monitoring, verification prior to ordering or deliveries of fuel to the site. The
monitoring system will shut down the fueling facility if an alarm condition occurs, i.e. if a leak occurs
from the piping tank, etc. or if power is lost to the monitoring system. In addition, Vertex Services
monitors all Veeder-Root systems 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Dispensers and Shear Valves: The Gilbarco brand multi-product dispensers are used at Costco
locations and are equipped with double-poppeted shear valves to minimize the release of product in the
event of impact with the dispenser or hose drive-off. Each product line at the dispenser containment
sump will be equipped with an emergency shut-off impact valve with fusible link mounted on the
stabilizer bar of the dispenser containment sump. In addition, each fuel hose shall be installed with a
double poppeted breakaway device that will stop the flow of fuel at both ends in the event of an
accidental drive-off.
Fire Alarm Transmitting Device: This device transmits an alarm to the local Fire Department or to a
security company responsible for monitoring the facility off-hours.
Emergency Shut-Off Switch/Alarm: As an added safety feature, emergency shut-off switches are
installed on the canopy column, next to the controller enclosure, and as dictated by the Uniform Fire
Code. The switch shuts off the pumps and sets off an alarm inside the warehouse to alert warehouse
personnel should an alarm condition occur. An audible alarm is also mounted on the equipment enclosure
exterior wall located directly adjacent to the underground storage tanks. The Costco warehouse alarm
system, which is monitored by an independent security company, would acknowledge an alarm condition
at the fuel facility and notify Costco management staff of an alarm condition, should it occur during non-
operating hours.
Fire Extinguishers: Extinguishers are located at each of the fuel islands and in the controller enclosure.
Supervision at all Times: The facility is open for business only when the gasoline station employees are
on duty on the Costco site. Hours of operation are typically 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., with abbreviated hours on
the weekend. The Costco Gasoline attendant will typically be stationed at the facility, and will always be
in constant contact with the facility by the use of a portable phone and video monitors, when he/she is not
physically present at the pump islands. The roam telephone will be in the attendant’s possession to
respond to any customers calling for assistance on the “Help line” at the gas facility. A system of video
cameras at the canopy, and monitors at the warehouse membership area allow for the second point of
surveillance. The purpose of the attendant is make certain that Costco members are provided a safe, clean,
and user-friendly gasoline facility.
Emergency phone: A 911 phone, that does not require the use of coin, is located at the controller
enclosure next to the gasoline facility. This is in addition to the customer “Help line,” described above.
Driver and Attendant Training: All fuel delivery truck drivers and employees are taught how to safely
handle minor spills and how to respond to mishaps. Kits to safely dispose of clean-up material are
available at the facility. Emergency numbers are posted at the controller enclosure by the telephone.
Response procedures are also posted. An Emergency Response and Management Plan kept is in the
317
4 10276.002.doc
controller enclosure and also provides the same information. Drivers and attendants are trained to
measure the level of gasoline in the tanks prior to placing the order and filling.
Maintenance: The Costco attendant trained to identify maintenance needs will physically inspects the
fuel islands daily for leaking hoses, malfunctioning nozzles, minor fuel spills, physical damage to the
dispensers, and the controller room security. Worn or failing equipment is replaced and documented in
maintenance logs kept at the facility. During non-operating hours, dispenser power is turned off and
nozzles pad-locked. Should the system require attention beyond what the trained site person could
handle, the local certified service contractor would be contacted and dispatched to repair the equipment.
Regular Comprehensive Station Check: Twice yearly, a gas station service contractor and corporate
manager checks the facility for equipment condition and upgrade reviews.
V. REGULATORY AGENCIES, REGULATIONS AND PERMITS:
The following is a list of regulations and agencies that govern gasoline facilities and, as noted, require
specific permits or approvals. This list shows the magnitude of the regulatory environment that governs
this industry. Costco has met or exceeded all the standards and requirements outlined below for the
Costco gasoline facility.
Uniform Fire Code, Articles 52 and 79
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Underground Storage Tank Regulations 40 CFR
280, 281
Various Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) Listings (22 Y5-NL 142)
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Article 30, regarding Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code (UL 971 – Flexible Piping)
American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground
Storage Systems; API 1615 Petroleum Equipment Institute Recommended
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Underground Storage Tank Program
VI. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES:
Notification of Spills: Notification of the release of product will be in accordance with the local
emergency plan and the Montana Underground Storage Tank Regulations.
Mitigation and Control: Montana Underground Storage Tank Regulations require the appropriate
immediate action to protect human health and the environment, and require appropriate cleanup, storage,
and disposal of hazardous substances.
Response to incidents: Gas station attendant(s) will be responsible for immediate response to
emergencies and other incidents occurring on site. They will be trained in the emergency response and
notification procedures which will be outlined in the Emergency Response and Management Plan kept at
the gasoline facility at all times. They will be trained to respond according to the magnitude of the
situation.
318
5 10276.002.doc
Small spills: Attendant(s) will contain small spills using the on site spill containment kit’s absorbent
materials while wearing protective clothing and safety equipment. No water will be used to clean up or
flush the spilled gasoline from the spill site, as this may result in discharge to the environment. Small
spills and cleanup will be recorded in the facility maintenance log.
Large spills or other discharge to the environment: In the event of a large spill or release of product,
the attendant will immediately hit the emergency shut-off switch. The attendant will then identify the
exact source amount and the extent of any released material. The attendant will announce the emergency
to all persons on-site, eliminate sources of ignition (e.g. do not start cars), have all persons exit the
premises on foot, give assistance to persons injured or needing help leaving the premises, and block off
driveway entrances/exits to facility. The attendant will also call 911. This will immediately notify the
City of Los Angeles Fire Department, which will allow for immediate response to contain the spill on
site. If petroleum product is conveyed into the environment, the Local Agency (City/County
Environmental Health) and the local certified service contractor will be notified to determine the
necessary remediation. These names and phone numbers will be posted on the gasoline facility and
maintained in the on-site copy of the Emergency Response and Management Plan.
Fire condition: In the event of a fire condition the attendant will hit the emergency shut-off switch, call
911 to alarm the Fire Department, and evacuate the area as described above. The attendant extinguishes
the fire only if it can be done safely. Fire extinguishers are kept at the gasoline facility at all times.
Other discharge to environment: In the event of tank or piping failure, the monitoring systems will
sound an alarm condition and shut down the fueling operation. The monitoring system will detect the
location of the failure. If piping or tank failures have occurred, Costco will remove product from the
system, notify the Local Agency, and will employ its local certified service contractor to excavate and
remove/replace the failed system. Costco will also test or examine for a release of product into the
environment. If that has occurred it will be necessary to designate and treat, store or dispose of all soils or
waters contaminated in accordance the State regulations.
Financial Responsibility: Costco ensures that there will be money available to pay for the cost of
cleanup, personal injury, and/or property damage caused by a leak from an underground storage tank.
Through self-insurance, they guarantee funds in the amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million
annual aggregate.
VII. DEVIATION REQUESTS
Per section 18.30.080 of the UDO, the maximum/ minimum deviation from the underlying standards that
the City Commission can grant for a request requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Entryway
Corridor is 20 percent beyond or below minimum or maximum standards respectively. The City
Commission must make a determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape
quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards, and which will be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this chapter, and with the adopted Design Objectives Plan for the particular
entryway corridor.
Canopy Height Deviation: Section 18.40.060.8 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance
specifies a maximum allowable gasoline canopy height of 18'. The proposed Costco Gasoline canopy
measures 21’9”. The requested deviation proposes a height increase of approximately 15 percent, which
is within the 20 percent threshold. The deviation is requested to provide a gabled canopy roof instead of a
standard flat canopy roof.
319
6 10276.002.doc
The gabled design is consistent with Bozeman’s Building Design Guidelines that support sloping roofs to
reduce the perceived scale of the building and reflect Bozeman’s historical character. The design is also a
non-franchise in style canopy with gabled beams and earth tone coloring and texturing. Upholding the
canopy height limit would force Costco to propose a standard flat roof canopy inconsistent with the
Bozeman Building Design Guidelines.
Canopy Lighting Deviation: Pursuant to UDO 18.42.750, the average illumination allowed for the
pump island area under the canopy is 10 maintained foot-candles. The proposed average illumination
beneath the canopy is 11.11 foot-candles. This is an increase of approximately 11 percent over the
maximum illumination allowed. This is within the maximum 20 percent deviation allowed by code.
The lighting deviation is for approximately one foot-candle more than allowed by code. This is an
imperceptible difference to the casual observer. The proposed lighting program includes four general
area lights and individual spotlights on each dispenser. The lighting is designed to provide a safe level of
illumination at critical points beneath the canopy while eliminating overall glare. The lenses in each light
fixture are specially designed to focus the light on the intended area with very little spill over beyond the
canopy area. The photometric analysis submitted with the application depicts illumination rapidly
decreasing outside of the canopy due to this special lighting design.
Should the deviation be denied, Costco would need to eliminate one or more fixtures, which could
compromise the safety of the operation. As proposed, the illumination at this fueling facility would rank
as one of the lowest Costco Gasoline facilities in the nation.
VIII. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
Pursuant to the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, the City Commission shall, in approving a
conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and
all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate
such use with the land and uses in the vicinity; 34-10
ANALYSIS: The Costco Gasoline facility will be located on an underutilized portion of the Costco
parking lot, and will blend into the parking lot circulation pattern. The project meets all base
development standards for the underlying zone, including height and setbacks. No walls or fences are
proposed. The property will continue to provide parking to code standards after the facility is
constructed. Landscaping will follow the character the existing planting plan and will increase the
total amount of landscaping provided on site.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Persons
objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof;
ANALYSIS: The fueling facility is a compatible and accessory use to the main warehouse operation,
and will be located in a predominantly commercial area. The facility will operate during the same
general hours of the main warehouse and will be architecturally compatible with the store and the
commercial area in general.
320
7 10276.002.doc
The submitted traffic analysis demonstrates that the facility will generate most of its business from
Costco members already visiting the warehouse, and therefore will not introduce a substantial amount
of new traffic the adjacent road network. Also, recent road improvements made in the area were
designed to accommodate increased traffic from future commercial development in the area.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to:
a. Regulation of use;
ANALYSIS: No additional use regulations are proposed or requested for this project.
b. Special yards, spaces and buffers;
ANALYSIS: The project meets all base development standards for the underlying zone,
including height and setbacks. Landscaping will follow the character the existing planting
plan and will increase the total amount of landscaping provided on site.
c. Special fences, solid fences and walls;
ANALYSIS: No fences or walls are proposed for this project.
d. Surfacing of parking areas;
ANALYSIS: All surface parking areas will be paved with asphalt to match the existing
parking lot. The area beneath the canopy will be paved with concrete.
e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds;
ANALYSIS: No road improvements or dedications are required for this project.
f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress;
ANALYSIS: The project will utilize existing access points and will not require any new
access points or modifications.
g. Regulation of signs;
ANALYSIS: All canopy signs will be consistent with Bozeman’s Sign Code and Bozeman
Design Objectives Plan. The project does not propose a freestanding sign.
h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds;
ANALYSIS: Staff and contractors responsible for the maintenance of the entire Costco
property will be responsible for maintenance of the grounds surrounding the fueling facility.
i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors;
ANALYSIS: The facility will not generate noise beyond that of a typical retail commercial
operation.
321
8 10276.002.doc
j. Regulation of hours for certain activities;
ANALYSIS: The facility hours are typically limited from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to match the
warehouse hours. The facility could be open for one hour before opening and one hour after
closing.
k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed;
ANALYSIS: Construction of the fueling facility is planned for the spring of 2007 provided
all land use entitlements and construction plan approvals are obtained.
l. Duration of use;
ANALYSIS: Not applicable.
m. Requiring the dedication of access rights;
ANALYSIS: A dedication of access rights is not required for this project.
n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and
efficient manner.
ANALYSIS: No other conditions are proposed with this application.
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
14' 6"14' 6"SCALE:1EAST/WESTSIDE ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1''-0"SCALE:2NORTH/SOUTHEND ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1''-0"SCALE:4CANOPY SIGN DETAIL (S.I.O.)3/8" = 1''-0"SCALE:3CONTROLLER ENCLOSUREEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/4" = 1''-0"COSTCO GASOLINECONCEPT ELEVATIONSB O Z E M A N, M O N T A N AJ A N U A R Y 1 0, 2 0 0 796-0900-07JANUARY 10, 2007DD3.1-02BOZEMAN, MT1110 112TH AVE. NE | SUITE 500BELLEVUE, WA | 98004MulvannyG2.comt 425.463.2000 | f 425.463.2002336
FILENAME: H:\projfile\8158 - Bozeman Costco Gas Station\report\final\circulation.doc
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 5, 2007 Project #: 8158
To: Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Project: Bozeman Costco Fuel Station Addition
Subject: Fuel Station Circulation
CC: Kim Sanford, Costco Wholesale
In response to questions raised by the Design Review Committee (DRC), Kittelson &
Associates, Inc. (KAI) has prepared this supplemental memorandum to document anticipated on-
site access and circulation patterns for the proposed Costco Gasoline fuel station addition to the
existing Bozeman Costco warehouse site. This memorandum supplements the August 22, 2006
report that summarized trip generation and traffic impacts on the surrounding transportation
system.
This memorandum outlines:
• anticipated circulation plans for the fueling area and member shopping patterns;
• internal capture, or sharing of trips, between the fuel station and the existing warehouse;
and
• traffic assignment and split between the two site entrances.
CIRCULATION PLAN & MEMBER PATTERNS
As shown in Figure 1, the fuel station is proposed with a one-way circulation pattern. This is
consistent with the circulation flow for all Costco Gasoline facilities and has proven to be the
most efficient and orderly layout for member driving patterns and on-site operations. All
vehicles will be required to enter the fuel station from the western site access on Catron Street or
from the western-most drive aisle in the internal site parking lot. Vehicles will circulate through
the fuel station islands and exit the fuel station directed into drive aisles in the parking lot. KAI
has worked with the design team to develop the necessary channelization around the fuel station
area to ensure that appropriate vehicular paths and storage areas are provided and to minimize
potential conflict points.
In addition, the fuel station area has been designed to provide “pass through” aisles in between
the fuel islands to allow for vehicles to circulate around and between other vehicles at the fuel
pumps if necessary.
337
338
Bozeman Costco Fuel Station Addition Project #: 8158
February 5, 2007 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Boise, Idaho
Observations at other Costco Gasoline facilities have shown that the majority of members
purchase gas as their first activity on the site and then park to visit the warehouse. The
circulation plan for the fuel station facility has been developed accordingly to direct vehicles
exiting the fuel station into the main parking area without needing to travel off of the site onto
the adjacent roadways. In addition, a travel route from the fuel station exit to the eastern site
access has been developed for those fuel station patrons who do not continue to the warehouse
after purchasing gas.
Based on data from 28 other representative Costco Gasoline sites, over half of the customers at
the fuel station (53%) will also patronize the warehouse (this is called internalization of trips).
These are trips already generated by the existing warehouse but who will now also purchase gas
during their visit to the Costco site.
INTERALIZATION OF TRIPS (TRIP SHARING)
A detailed evaluation of the likely new trips generated by the fuel station addition was provided
in the August 22, 2006 assessment. In summary, trip generation for Costco sites has particular
characteristics due to the unique nature of customer travel, membership requirements, and the
nature of Costco sales. These unique elements apply to the trip generation for Costco
warehouses, Costco fuel stations, and the interaction of trips between the two. Membership
requirements have a significant effect on trip internalization (or sharing of trips) between the
warehouse and the fuel station. Fewer people "just drop in" to Costco fuel stations because they
have another primary purpose for visiting the site (that being a trip to the warehouse). Based on
studies at over 25 other Costco Gasoline facilities, approximately 53% of daily trips and 46% of
the weekday p.m. peak hour trips to and from Costco fueling stations are internal capture trips.
Internal capture trips account for those customers who patron both the warehouse and the
gasoline pumps during a single visit to the Costco site. As such, although they account for a trip
to both the warehouse and the fuel station, they only account for one overall vehicle trip to the
site and on the surrounding transportation system. At some sites this number ranges as high as
75% but for the purposes of analysis a conservative average estimate is typically used.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AT SITE ACCESSES
Given the site layout and likely order of member fuel purchase, it is anticipated that
approximately 70-80% of the fuel station trips will use the western most access along Catron
Street to enter the site. The remaining 20-30% of the trips using the eastern main access to enter
the site and then travel to the fuel station internally through the parking drive aisles or after
parking and visiting the warehouse.
We trust this memorandum provides the necessary additional information related to the on-site
circulation and vehicular patterns for the proposed Costco Gasoline addition. Please contact us
at 1-866-900-2683 if you have any questions or require any additional information.
339