HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 2_155-202_Buffalo Wild Wings Conditional Use Permit_Certificate of Appropriateness Application #Z-06209
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209
MEETING DATE: Monday, March 5, 2007 at 6:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approve the Buffalo Wild Wings
Conditional Use and Certificate of Appropriateness application (#Z-06209) as conditioned by
Planning Staff.
BACKGROUND: This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) would allow the construction of a new 5,995 square foot restaurant with
on-premise alcohol consumption and related site improvements on property located at 1783 North
19th, directly north of Home Depot.
On November 9, 2006 the applicant withdrew their application in order to allow for additional time
to redesign to address Design Review Board (DRB) and staff comments. On February 1, 2007 the
applicant submitted a revised application and a request to reinitiate the review process. The
applicant provided new fees at that time for advertising and the project has been re-advertised and
posted for review.
The Design Review Board reviewed and moved to provide a recommendation of approval to the
Commission on this project at their February 14, 2007 meeting.
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
309
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
BUFFALO WILD WINGS CUP/COA FILE NO. #Z-06209
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 1
Item: Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness Application
#Z-06209 to allow the construction of a new 5,995 square foot
restaurant and related site improvements on property located at 1783
North 19th Avenue (Home Depot Pad Lot #2) designated as
“Business Park” in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and zoned M-
1 (Light Manufacturing District)
Owner: Thornton Gateway Partnership III LLC & KLC Partners LLC
1720 Wazee Street, Suite 1A
Denver, CO 80202
Applicant: Brad Anderson
2923 Montana Avenue
Billings, MT 59101
Representative: CM Architecture
219 North Second Street, Suite 301
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Date: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 6
pm in the 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 1783 North 19th Avenue, north of Home Depot and south of
Baxter Lane. The site is legally described as Lot 2, Home Depot Minor Subdivision No. 319, located in the
east half of Section 2, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana and the zoning designation for said
property is M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). The property is part of the Stone Ridge Planned Unit
Development (PUD), is designated as “Business Park” in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, and is zoned
M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). Please refer to the vicinity map provided below.
310
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 2
PROPOSAL
The application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would allow construction of a restaurant with on-
premise consumption of beer and wine within the Stoneridge Square PUD. Stoneridge Square is located on
the northwest corner of the intersection of Oak Street and North 19th Avenue. The subject property lies
within the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street Entryway Overly District.
Stoneridge Square was reviewed extensively by the Design Review Board (DRB) and was ultimately
approved by the City Commission in December 2005. As conditioned by the City Commission all projects
within the Stoneridge Square PUD must be reviewed by the DRB. The majority of the buildings will be
reviewed in house with the Planning Director making the final decision; however, because Buffalo Wild
Wings is a CUP for on-premise consumption of alcohol, the City Commission must make the final decision.
The additional details provided with the site plan have been reviewed against the preliminary documents for
the Stoneridge Square PUD and appear to be in compliance with the development guidelines. On February
14, 2007 the Design Review Board (DRB) recommended approval of the application.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). The intent of the M-1 district is to
provide for the community’s needs for wholesale trade, storage and warehousing, trucking and
transportation terminals, light manufacturing and similar activities. The district should be oriented to major
transportation facilities yet arranged to minimize adverse effects on residential development, therefore, some
type of screening may be necessary. Please note that this lot is part of the StoneRidge PUD which was
approved for expanded uses including restaurants. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the
subject property:
311
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 3
North: Community Stormwater Pond (part of Home Depot Lot), zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing
District)
South: Home Depot, zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District)
East: Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce & Mountain West Bank, zoned B-2 (Community Business
District)
West: Baxter Creek and open space for Home Depot, zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District);
further west is a single household residence in the County, zoned Agriculture-Suburban.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates this property as “Business Park.” This classification
provides for areas typified by office uses and technology-oriented light industrial uses, although retail,
services, or industrial uses may also be included in an accessory or local service role. The properties located
directly north, south, and west are also designated as “Business Park.” The residence further to the west is
designated as “Residential.” The properties across North 19th Avenue are designated as “Regional
Commercial & Services.”
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
The City of Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Conditional Use Permit and
Certificate of Appropriateness against relevant chapters of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
and as a result offers the following summary review comments. The findings outlined in this report include
comments and recommended conditions provided by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the
Design Review Board.
Section 18.34.090 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
In considering applications for site plan approval under this title, the City Commission, the DRC,
and the ADR Staff shall consider the following:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan
including the “Business Park” land use designation.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The
following code provisions must be addressed prior to Final Site Plan approval:
(a) That 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.
(b) That 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 successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing, and
shall be recorded as such with the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office by the property
312
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 4
owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, Final Site Plan approval or
commencement of the conditional use.
(c) Section 18.34.130 requires the applicant to submit seven (7) copies a Final Site Plan within
six (6) months of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and
modifications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) Section 18.42.170 requires the trash receptacles to be appropriately sized and located as
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 enclosures, dimensions of the receptacles
and enclosures and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City
Sanitation Division (phone: 586-3258) prior to Final Site Plan approval.
(h) Section 18.46.040.D states that disabled accessible spaces shall be located as near as practical
to a primary entrance. Parking spaces and access aisles shall be level with slopes not
exceeding 1:50 in all directions. Raised signs shall be located at a distance no greater than
five feet from the front of each accessible space and shall state “Permit Required $100 Fine”.
One of the disabled accessible spaces shall also be signed “Van Accessible.” The “Van
Accessible” space shall be 8 feet wide with an 8 foot wide striped unloading aisle/ramp.
(i) Section 18.46.040.E states that all developments shall provide adequate bicycle parking
facilities to accommodate employees and customers. The location and details for the bike
rack shall be provided in the final site plan.
(j) Chapter 18.52 requires approval of individual Sign Permit Applications prior to the
construction and installation of any on-site signage. With the Final Site Plan submittal, the
applicant’s must provide signage details including location, general style, dimensions,
materials, colors, and methods of illumination for review and approval by the Planning
Department. Free-standing signs are not permitted in the 50-foot setback along North 19th
Avenue.
(k) The final landscape plan (as part of the Final Site Plan submittal) shall meet the requirements
of Chapter 18.48 and the Design Objectives Plan (see Page 77) and shall be signed and
certified by a landscape professional as outlined in Section 18.78.100.
(l) The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned and a legend of all line types and symbols utilized
shall be provided upon each respective plan sheet.
313
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 5
(m) Distinguish between proposed and existing water/sewer/storm mains and services, as well
as proposed and existing easements.
(n) A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system
designed to remove solids, silts, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided and
approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage
(including sufficient spot elevations) and shall include calculations for stormwater runoff and
sizing of stormwater piping.
(o) A storm water easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office for the retention pond and discharge course if located
off the subject property.
(p) Sewer and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved by the Water and Sewer
Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the
applicant.
(q) Public utility mains and services shall be shown upon the Landscape Plan and be greater
than 10’ from landscaping trees, lot lighting improvements, and lot drainage facilities.
(r) The applicant is advised that any newly-constructed establishments responsible for food
preparation shall install an outside two-compartment grease interceptor. Interceptor design
and installation is subject to City of Bozeman Building Department approval. In accordance
with Municipal Code, the applicant is further advised that on-site maintenance records and
interceptor service shall be maintained on a regular basis and made available to the City upon
request.
(s) Typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) and typical asphalt paving section detail
shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Concrete curbing shall be provided
around the entire new parking lot perimeter and adequately identified on the FSP.
(t) The location of existing water and sewer mains shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby
fire hydrants. Proposed main extensions shall be labeled "proposed".
(u) Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside of sight triangles, but on the subject
property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off the property and
filed with the County Clerk and Recorder).
(v) If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre
of natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana
Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau, shall be contacted by the
applicant to determine if a Storm Water Discharge Permit is necessary. If required by the
WQB, an erosion/sediment control plan shall be prepared for disturbed areas of 1 acre or
less if the point of discharge is less than 100’ from State Waters.
(w) 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
314
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 6
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.
(x) The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, SCS, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the
proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be
obtained prior to FSP approval.
(y) All 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
No violations or other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations apply at this time. The
applicants will need to obtain the proper state and local alcohol licenses and provide copies
to the Planning Office prior to occupancy as noted in the conditions of approval.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
The proposed restaurant is approximately 6,000 square feet in area and approximately 26
feet tall. The overall height and use of material and colors appeal to the neighborhood sense
of scale and will provide a transition in building size from Baxter Lane to the larger retailers
to the south.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions
Traffic has been addressed with the subdivision and PUD applications. For parking,
according to the floor plan provided in the applicant’s submittal materials, there appears to
be approximately 2,400 square feet of indoor serving area. The UDO requires 1 space per 50
square feet of indoor serving area which equates to approximately 48 parking spaces. 40
standard parking spaces and three disabled accessible spaces have been depicted on the site
plan with an additional 14 spaces as off-site shared parking as allowed within the PUD. The
Final Site Plan will also be evaluated to ensure parking compliance.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress
A pedestrian connection is provided from the pathway along N. 19th Avenue and from a
local gravel trail from the Home Depot property that leads to the patio and front door.
Vehicular access is from shared access drives with Home Depot.
315
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 7
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 landscaping appears to be high quality and designed to enhance the site with wpcial
attention given to the transition to the retention pond to the north and parking lot
landscaping to the south along the property line. The Final Landscape Plan, which must be
signed and certified by a landscape professional as outlined in Section 18.78.100, will be
evaluated for required points with the Final Site Plan submittal.
8. Open space
None required exclusive of required yards and PUD open space.
9. Building location and height
The proposed building front entrance faces N. 19th Avenue and an outdoor patio opens on
to a retention pond and common open space. The majority of the parking is to the side of
the building. The height is approximately 26 feet which is well below the maximum height
allowed by the UDO.
10. Setbacks
The setbacks in the M-1 zone for buildings are 20 feet front yard (N. 19th Avenue), 3 feet
for rear yards, and 3 feet for side yards. The setbacks for parking and loading areas are 20
feet for the front, 0 feet for the rear, and 0 feet for the sides. The proposed plan meets the
required setbacks and the Final Site Plan will also be reviewed to ensure compliance with all
required setbacks.
11. Lighting
The applicant has submitted a lighting detail and it is in conformance with the code. All
lighting must conform to code requirements as noted in the code provisions.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities
There do not appear to be any matters of public concern on this item. The applicant will
need to coordinate with Northwest, Qwest, or other private providers. The utilities and
easements need to be coordinated with the landscape plan to ensure no overlap.
13. Site surface drainage
Stormwater runoff calculations will be required as part of the Final Site Plan and any needed
grading for stormwater must be provided.
14. Loading and unloading areas
Non-applicable.
316
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 8
15. Grading
Grading will be required on the site to transition down from the Home Depot elevationto
the elevation of the pad site. All grading is required to route the water to the storm water
detention areas directly to the north.
16. Signage
All new signage shall require a sign permit. There is a sign proposed on the gable end on the
entrance side of the building and additional signage on the south elevations. Additional
details for the signs will need to be submitted with the Final Site Plan.
17. Screening
The UDO and the Design Objectives Plan require all mechanical equipment to be screened
from view. The elevations depict the screen height of the roof mounted mechanical. Any
additional building mounted or ground mounted mechanical or utility equipment will need
to be screened. Also, all dumpsters require a trash enclosure with the location subject to
review and approval by the City Sanitation Division.
18. Overlay district provisions
The subject property lies within the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street Entryway Overly
District; therefore, the project has been reviewed against the relevant portions of the Design
Objectives Plan by the DRB. Additional provisions for development in the Entryway
Corridor have been addressed through the recommended conditions set forth by Staff.
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties
The Planning Office has received one letter in support of the proposal. It is included in the
staff report packet. Any letters received after the date of this Staff Report will be distributed
to the Commission at the public hearing.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or
other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
1. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become
nonconforming;
2. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which
the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more
elements of the development to become nonconforming.
Non-applicable.
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:
317
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 9
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 a restaurant. 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 restaurant will not have adverse effects
upon the abutting property. Staff has not received any negative 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 not identified any 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 additional
conditions, would be in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the provisions of the City
of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance including the Design Objectives Plan for the Entryway
Corridor Overlay zones. Staff recommends conditional approval subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. All portions of the north/south trail that is within the property limits of this proposal and along the
N. 19th Avenue Corridor that connects the Home Depot property with the corner of Baxter Lane
and N. 19th Avenue shall be overlaid with asphalt prior to building occupancy.
2. The Final Site Plan shall be accompanied by a letter of approval from the Stone Ridge Architectural
Review Committee.
3. 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.
318
#Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 10
4. All point calculations required by Section 18.48.060 of the Unified Development Ordinance and the
“Greenway Park” requirements beginning on Page 77 of the Design Objectives Plan shall be
included on the Final Landscape Plan.
5. Per Chapter 1, Guideline C and Chapter 2, Guideline H of the Design Objectives Plan, the Final Site
Plan shall note the crosswalk as a colored scored concrete paver.
6. Per Chapter 1, Guideline D of the Design Objectives Plan, the Final Site Plan shall include outdoor
street furniture (minimum of two benches) in the plaza area in front of the main entrance.
7. Per Chapter 4, Guideline 2 of the Design Objectives Plan, backlit signage shall not have a white
background.
8. Currently the City of Bozeman has located their recycling ‘binnies’ in the location of one of the
proposed accesses to this site. The applicant shall coordinate with city’s solid waste division to
remove or relocate these binnies.
9. That the applicant upon submitting the Final Site Plan for approval and prior to issuance of a
building permit, will also submit a written narrative outlining how each of the above conditions of
approval and code provisions on pages 3-6 of the staff report have been satisfied.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends conditional approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and COA #Z-06209 with
the conditions and code provisions outlined in the staff report.
Attachments: Applicant Submittal Materials
DRB Staff Report
DRB Memo
Report Sent To: Brad Anderson, 2923 Montana Avenue, Billings, MT 597101
Erica Rishovd, CM Architecture, 219 Second Street, Suite 301, Minneapolis, NM
55401
Thornton Gateway Partnership III, LLC, 1720 Wazee Street Unit 1A, Denver CO
80202
319
320
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
RE: Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA, #Z-06209
DATE: February 5, 2007 for February 14, 2007 Meeting
I have taken over project management of this project from Susan Kozub. On November 9, 2006 the
applicant withdrew their application in order to allow for additional time to redesign to address Design
Review Board (DRB) and staff comments. Since that time I have been working closely with the applicant
offering review and comment on proposed site and building elevation modifications. On February 1, 2007
the applicant submitted a revised application and a request to reinitiate the review process. As the project
had been withdrawn the applicant provided new fees for advertising and the project has been re-advertised
and posted for review.
The revised application contains many changes that were suggested by the Design Review Board at the last
review meeting on November 8, 2006.
This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would allow the construction of a new 5,995 square
foot restaurant with on-premise alcohol consumption and related site improvements on property located at
1783 North 19th Avenue (Home Depot Pad Lot #2). The property is designated as “Business Park” in the
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). A public hearing before
the Commission on the revised application is scheduled for March 5, 2007.
The modifications to the site plan and building elevations are well documented in a letter submitted by the
applicant dated February 1, 2007. I would refer you to that letter for a review of the modifications.
Staff recommends conditional approval of the application.
If DRB concurs, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. All portions of the north/south trail that is within the property limits of this proposal and along the
N. 19th Avenue Corridor that connects the Home Depot property with the corner of Baxter Lane
and N. 19th Avenue shall be overlaid with asphalt prior to building occupancy.
2. The Final Site Plan shall be accompanied by a letter of approval from the StoneRidge Architectural
Review Committee.
3. 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.
321
Page 2
4. All point calculations required by Section 18.48.060 of the Unified Development Ordinance and the
“Greenway Park” requirements beginning on Page 77 of the Design Objectives Plan shall be
included on the Final Landscape Plan.
5. Per Chapter 1, Guideline C and Chapter 2, Guideline H of the Design Objectives Plan, the Final Site
Plan shall note the crosswalk as a colored scored concrete paver.
6. Per Chapter 1, Guideline D of the Design Objectives Plan, the Final Site Plan shall include outdoor
street furniture (minimum of two benches) in the plaza area in front of the main entrance.
7. Per Chapter 4, Guideline 2 of the Design Objectives Plan, backlit signage shall not have a white
background.
* Please note that code provisions related to parking calculations, bike racks, down-lighting,
signage, trash enclosure details, mechanical equipment screening, and certification by a
landscape professional are all required by the Development Review Committee (DRC).
Sent To: Brad Anderson, 2923 Montana Avenue, Billings, MT 597101
Erica Rishovd, CM Architecture, 219 Second Street, Suite 301, Minneapolis, NM 55401
Thornton Gateway Partnership III, LLC, 1720 Wazee Street Unit 1A, Denver CO 80202
Tom Milleson, 115 West Kagy Boulevard, Suite G, Bozeman MT 59715-6031
322
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 1
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
323
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 2
building to be lost in the design.
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.
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.
324
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 3
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
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
325
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 4
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
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
326
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 5
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
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
327
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 6
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
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
328
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 7
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
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
329
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 8
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.
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
330
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 9
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
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
331
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 10
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
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
332
Design Review Board Minutes – February 14, 2007 11
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
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
Corporate Office
2923 Montana Ave
Billings, MT 59101
Phone 406.256.6551
Fax 406.259.8627
www.buffalowildwings.com
February 1, 2006
Department of Planning & Community
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771-1230
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is a formal request to please reinitiate the project listed below:
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar
1783 North 19th Avenue
Bozeman MT 59718
Lot 2, Home Depot Minor Subdivision No. 319
CUP/COA #Z-06209
Please note changes that have been made to the project since the previous review by the Design
Review Board:
1. Path now connects to patio.
2. Added rooftop screening of mechanical equipment.
3. Awning design has been changed
4. Awning fabric has been changed to metal.
5. Awnings are now all black, replacing yellow and black checkerboard design.
6. Patio is larger and now extends beyond area protected by shed roof.
7. The patio footprint has been modified to provide a more interesting edge profile.
8. The west elevation (back) has been modified to include more articulation, lighting that
matches the rest of the building, and more landscaping.
9. Signage has been removed from the west elevation (back).
10. Revised the patio to stamped and stained concrete.
11. The north & south corner pilasters have been enlarged with niches added for interest, thus
strengthening the corners of the building.
12. The display windows have been deepened to 2’-0” in depth.
13. The trellises have been redesigned to add interest when there are no leaves present.
14. The paved walk in front of the building extends to the unpaved bike path north of the
building. The walk has also been widened here to allow adding another bike rack for
patrons.
15. The stone water table has been added to the column bases @ the patio.
16. New lighting fixtures have been selected to facilitate full cut-off lighting.
Thank you for your attention to this project.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson
President
350
351
352
353
KIM LIGHTING 7KIMLIGHTING6
• Vertical and
Horizontal
lamp modes
• Multiple light
distributions
• Efficiency and
Uniformity
• Three lens
configurations
• Twin Mount
Variations
Twin Mount Variations
Because the NeoSphere can be rotated 360° on any of
its mountings, twin arm mounting can produce a variety
of light patterns without changing the arm
orientation. This allows a more uniform visual
site appearance if desired. The examples at
right are variations that can be achieved using
asymmetric light distributions II, III or IV.
Horizontal & Vertical Lamp
Available light distributions and luminaire lens configurations.
Type II Type III Type III
Type IV Type V Sq.Type V Sq.
NS2 NS3 NS4NS1
Clear Hemispherical Acrylic
Available in both horizontal and
vertical lamp modes, this model
produces extra sparkle from the
lens, which also visually com-
pletes the spherical luminaire
shape. Optional polycarbonate is
available for vandal prone areas.
Flat Glass Lens
This model should be selected
for maximum brightness control.
Also, a black or dark bronze fix-
ture finish will soften brightness
by reducing reflections from the
support arms. Only horizontal
lamp modes are available in this
model.
Translucent White Acrylic
Available in a vertical lamp
mode only, this lens projects a
soft glow that is more visible
from a distance. It also visually
completes the spherical lumi-
naire shape both day and night.
Because the lens is diffuse, only
a standard Type V round light
pattern is available. Optional
polycarbonate is also available.
NS1 NS2 NS3/4
Type II Type III Type V Type V
Type IV Type V Sq.
OPTICAL DESIGN/VERSATILITY
Horizontal Lamp Optics
Kim horizontal lamp reflector systems are engineered to
produce sharp cutoff, wide pole spacing and excellent
uniformity of illumination. Each reflector type is a self
contained module that is easily removable for ballast
access. Four light distributions are available plus a louvered
houseside shield for areas where light trespass onto
adjacent property must be reduced. Horizontal lamp
modes should be selected for the NeoSphere where the
highest degree of brightness control is needed, plus the
application flexibility of having four light distributions to
cover various site geometrics. Two lens configurations
are also available: Flat glass, or clear acrylic (polycar-
bonate optional) in a hemispherical shape. See page 7
for selection criteria.
Available light distributions:
Type II Type III Type IV Type V Square
Vertical Lamp Optics
Kim vertical lamp reflectors have been engineered to
produce the widest possible light throw while creating
outstanding uniformity of illumination. Because of the
very wide throw, these reflector systems produce greater
high-angle fixture brightness which can have numerous
benefits. In general, fixture brightness makes the outdoor
lighting more apparent from a distance giving visitors a
more secure feeling that they are about to enter a well
lighted area. It also advertises that a business is open,
creating a more inviting atmosphere. Each reflector type is
a self-contained module; easily removed mounting
screws utilize keyhole slots for ballast access. Three light
distributions are available, with a houseside shield
option for the Type III asymmetric. Two hemispherical
lens configurations are also available: Clear or translu-
cent white acrylic with polycarbonate optional for vandal
prone areas. See page 7 for selection criteria.
Available light distributions:
Type III Type V Square Type V
At low angles,
bare lamp
illumination is
more than
adequate.
The elimination
of downward
reflecting sur-
faces greatly
increases
uniformity.
A specular
peened upper
reflector spreads
light into the
midrange
avoiding any
low angle
reflections.
High Angle
maximum
candlepower
& sharp cutoff
are produced
by the smooth
specular side
panels.
On Type III and Type V Sq.
optical systems, Kim’s
split-beam reflector geometry
keeps high angle reflected
light from blockage by the
lamp envelope. This greatly
improves luminaire
efficiency and lamp life.
Note:All NeoSphere optical systems use coated lamps
to eliminate shadows projected on the ground from the
luminaires’ vertical support and lens guard system.
Very high candlepower is generated at high angles
because the vertical lamp projects the majority of
its output toward the specular reflective surfaces.
354
355