Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-25-07 Packet_Buffalo Wild Wings Conditional Use Permit and Cert_14
Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA, #Z-06209 MEETING DATE: Monday, June 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approves this application with the conditions and code provisions outlined in the staff report addendum dated June 20, 2007. BACKGROUND: This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and 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 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). The original public hearing was held on February 26, 2007; however, after the comments received from the Commission, the applicant withdrew the project application to revise the site plan and redesign the building elevations. A revised application was received on April 24, 2007. The DRB reviewed the project on May 9, 2007 and provided additional comment and recommendations on the revised plans. The applicant again revised the site plan and building elevation in response to DRB and staff input. On June 13, 2007 the DRB review the final revised site plan and building elevations included in the attached packet. The DRB was enthusiastic and recommended unanimous approval of the application with a vote of 4-0. The revised project was re-noticed in the newspaper and to all property owners within 200 feet. A public hearing is required for this revised application. Staff, DRC, and DRB recommend conditional approval of this application with the conditions and code provisions in the staff report addendum date June 20, 2007. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The Commission during discussion on the project following the public hearing on February 26, 2007 inquired whether gaming was a component of this application. The applicant has provided a letter to staff dated May 3, 2007 that states “Buffalo Wild Wings will not be providing gaming at its Bozeman location.” The letter is attached to this memo for your reference. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the meeting. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager 267 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT—JUNE 20, 2007 ADDENDUM BUFFALO WILD WINGS CUP/COA FILE NO. #Z-06209 #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 1 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. The following conditions of approval are recommended. Code provisions are also listed below. Project Specific Conditions: 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 that includes physical material samples and color samples shall be provided, for review and approval by the Planning Office, prior to Final Site Plan approval. 4. All storefront windows and the proposed overhead doors on the east elevation shall include utilize dark colored (black or bronze) sashes, jambs, and mullions on the exterior of the building. 5. All exterior windows on the building shall utilize transparent clear glass. 6. The sidewalk section that is located between the accessible parking spaces at southwest corner of the building shall continue though the immediate parking lot landscape island to the edge of the drive aisle. 7. The sidewalk section provided through the landscaped area along the southern property line shall be shifted east to become a curb walk along the entire length of the east side of said landscape area. 8. The proposed grease interceptor shall accept waste only from the kitchen. All other sanitary sewer discharges shall be plumbed such that they do not go through the grease interceptor. 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 project specific conditions of approval and general code provisions have been satisfied. Code Provisions: 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 owner prior to the issuance of any building 268 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 photometric lighting plan to certify compliance for all on-site lighting including wall-mounted lights on the building and must be included in the Final Site Plan submittal. 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: 586-3238) prior to Final Site Plan approval. h. Section 18.46.040.D states that disabled accessible spaces shall be located as near as practical to a primary entrance. Parking spaces and access aisles shall be level with slopes not exceeding 1:50 in all directions. Raised signs shall be located at a distance no greater than five feet from the front of each accessible space and shall state “Permit Required $100 Fine”. One of the disabled accessible spaces shall also be signed “Van Accessible.” The “Van Accessible” space shall be 8 feet wide with an 8 foot wide striped unloading aisle/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. m. Distinguish between proposed and existing water/sewer/storm mains and services, as well as proposed and existing easements. #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 2 269 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 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. #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 3 270 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. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The DRC and DRB have reviewed the Conditional Use and Certificate of Appropriateness Application. Staff recommends to the City Commission approval of said application with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this Staff Report addendum. 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’s Final Revised Site Plan and Building Elevations Design Review Board Memo 6-7-07 Design Review Board Minutes 6-7-07 Aerial Exhibit Original City Commission Staff Report 3-5-2007 Report Sent to:: Tom Milleson, Milleson Architects, 115 West Kagy Boulevard, Suite G, Bozeman, MT 59715-6031 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 #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 4 271 Subject Property Buffalo Wild Wings CUP COA [ Legend Ditch Stream TrailsN 19TH AVENUEBaxter Lane 272 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: June 7, 2007 for June 13, 2007 Meeting BACKGROUND On March 9, 2007 the DRB provided comments to the applicant on their last submittal. The plans reviewed at the March 9, 2007 meeting were the fifth revision of this project. Forwarded to you with this packet is the sixth plan set staff has received for this project. The majority of the changes to the current proposal were related to minor building modifications, building materials, and the exterior color scheme. The applicant has incorporated previous staff and DRB comments into this plan. You should note that two separate building elevations have been included for your consideration by the applicant. The applicant forwarded a request to staff to include two elevations for your comment. While not a normal protocol for a design review application staff approved the applicants request due to the amount of comment and revisions this project has been subjected to. Staff notes that the two elevations only differ in the design of the “tower” element at the southwest corner of the building. Staff preference regarding the tower is listed in the comments below. 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 June 25, 2007. Staff would like to provide you with the following comments: • All ADR staff recommend that the elevations that include the hip roof on the tower element be recommended for approval. • The color scheme provides a rich palette. It appears the applicant has attempted to address the DRB concerns about a somber color palette. Staff is supportive of the brighter red color proposed for the top half of the façade of the building. It provides an interesting contrast with the brick and the vertical corrugated slate grey siding. The final color and materials palette will be crucial in making the transition from the colored elevations to the actual building materials on the ground. • Staff is excited to see a new material proposed on the building. The 3” by 3” welded wire mesh provides an interesting accent to the proposed tower, main gable entry, and the fire pit chimney. 273 Page 2 The material is non-traditional but conveys texture and will provide interesting shadows and patterns as light passes through. The material conveys a sense of enclosure while reducing the bulk of the proposed building elements. The use of the mesh on the fire pit chimney provides good continuity of the material to the north side of the site. • Panelized metal siding is only appropriate when utilized in such a way that provides a sense of human scale. In this context, the red box rib siding provides a horizontal element that draws the eye along the length of the building and in combination with the brick pilasters provides relief from the square character of the building. The slate grey corrugated metal siding is proposed in a vertical orientation that allows a break in pattern from the horizontal orientation of the brick masonry, cmu sill, and box rib siding. The panelized metal materials shall be matte finish to reduce the possibility of glare. • The staff recommendations to include a display window on the front elevation and a true transparent glass window on the east elevation have been implemented. • The trellises proposed on the north elevation are now proposed to be constructed in metal and painted to match other building elements. These elements provide good visual interest to the pedestrian and motorist on the north elevation during all seasons of the year. • Staff is recommending two conditions to shift sidewalk sections on site in order to allow a refuge for pedestrians accessing the site from the shared parking with Home Depot. • Overall, staff is very supportive of the current design. The design seems to strike a balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the applicant’s proposed business. The design modifications brought forth by the applicant’s design team over six different revisions represent a good faith effort to comply with the City’s stated design objectives and the comments of the DRB. The nontraditional and industrial materials utilized in formal and traditional orientations on the proposed restaurant continues a new commercial materials palette that has been emerging on projects citywide. This project represents a welcome break from the traditional materials palette seen on N. 19th Avenue (EIFS, timbered truss, and synthetic stone) and should be supported and commended. Finally, staff would like to note that this project achieves a new level and quality of outdoor seating and dining area heretofore unseen in the N. 19th Avenue Corridor. Staff recommends conditional approval of the application. 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 that includes physical material samples and color samples shall be provided, for review and approval by the Planning Office, prior to Final Site Plan approval. 4. All storefront windows and the proposed overhead doors on the east elevation shall include utilitze dark colored (black or dark bronze) sashes, jambs, and mullions on the exterior of the building. 5. All exterior windows on the building shall utilize transparent clear glass. 274 Page 3 6. The sidewalk section that is located between the accessible parking spaces at southwest corner of the building shall continue though the immediate parking lot landscape island to the edge of the drive aisle. 7. The sidewalk section provided through the landscaped area along the southern property line shall be shifted east to become a curb walk along the entire length of the east side of said landscape area. * 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 275 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Walter Banziger Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Christopher Livingston Visitors Present Tom Milleson Tyson Schaefer Brandon Whallon Tom Stonecipher Roger Grimes Shelly Engler ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2007. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 4 remove the phrase “that he remembered personal temperature issues”. Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 4 “solar build” should say “solar load” and remove “attack”. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of May 23, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 3-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Schaefer Addition COA/ADR Informal #I-07014 (Bristor) 541 North Bozeman Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a two-story addition on the south elevation including; a first floor kitchen, dining room, and shop with the second floor containing a bedroom, bathroom, and deck. Walter Banziger joined the DRB. Tyson Schaefer joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff memo noting that the applicant had already worked with her on a fence and front porch remodel. She stated the house is significant because of its uniqueness for the neighborhood (i.e. the brick 276 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 2 material). She directed the DRB to comments provided by the BHPAB and added that Staff was seeking further comments/recommendations from the DRB. Mr. Schaefer stated his proposed design had been arranged according to how he was intending to use the addition. He stated he agreed that the design was more modern than the original design of the structure, and that he could do without the proposed upstairs bedroom and instead have a single story addition with a full basement. He suggested other methods by which he could reduce the overall height of the structure. He stated he agreed that the proposed front of the structure would be too overzealous. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Staff recommendation #4 which suggested the applicant seek professional design assistance for his historical structure; adding that if the design were done correctly, the historic character of the structure could be maintained. Mr. Schaefer responded that he could do a shed dormer while keeping the proposed bedroom. Mr. Banziger stated the architect could take the proposal to the point that it would have a professional scale for the design aspects. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted that the applicant had taken on a tremendous challenge. He stated there were two options: order and exception; adding that order was trying to blend the new with the old design, and exception was trying to make the new design completely separate from the existing. He suggested that the appropriateness of the proposal and the language of the architecture were not consistent and recommended the applicant stay in character with the surrounding neighborhood and the existing structure. He added that the applicant needed a proposal that would complement the materials and architectural features on the existing house. Mr. Schaefer asked for specific design recommendations. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded that the DRB could not make specific recommendations as there were design professionals that would do a much better job than the DRB; adding that Mr. Schaefer could call him for names of those individuals. Chairperson Livingston concurred that Mr. Schaefer had done a lot of hard work on the proposal based on his needs, but should consult a professional. He stated he thought the house was very cool due to its weird position to the road. He added that there had been sandblasting and stucco done to the brick at some point. He stated the proposal looked as though it had been stuck onto the side of the house after the applicant had decided what he would need. He suggested the applicant propose a detached shed for the proposed shop to alleviate some of Staff’s concerns regarding the height of the structure. Planner Bristor added that if the shed would be less than 600 square feet in size, it could be located as near as six feet from the property line. Mr. Schaefer added that the foundation had failed on the south side and he wanted to dig out the existing foundation and replace it. Chairperson Livingston stated he liked the proposed location of the addition on the south elevation. Mr. Howe stated he concurred with previous DRB comments regarding the applicant seeking professional assistance with his design. Mr. Schaefer stated the addition being set back too far would be cause for him to remove and repair an existing wall that was in disrepair. Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated that the applicant was concerned enough with the house to bring it to the DRB for review and wished the applicant luck. 277 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 3 2. Walgreens Informal #I-07015 (Krueger) 511 North 7th Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy with related site improvements. Brandon Whallon joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff memo noting the project’s location in the North 7th Avenue Entryway Corridor, a TIF District, and that it would fall under the jurisdiction of the North 7th Avenue Design & Connectivity Plan. He stated Staff found that landscaping, pedestrian amenities, or a storefront would need to be instituted to provide for pedestrian interest. He stated the DOP showed an urban streetscape schematic for N. 7th Avenue and suggested relocating the structure to the setback and the service entrance could be configured to provide less asphalt. He added that the right-of-way needs for Durston Road and N. 7th Avenue were a concern due to the required 25 foot setbacks along arterial streets and another 20 foot setback to provide for the right of way. He stated he had provided renderings of existing Walgreens stores and had commented on the proposed building materials and roof design; adding that there was a scale of formality beginning with the downtown core of Bozeman and rippling toward the fringes of town. He stated the proposal fit between the rural design of structures within the N. 19th Ave. Corridor and the urban design of structures within the core area. He stated the DOP Plan and the N. 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan called for a more translucent storefront; suggesting the applicant include more glazing on portions of the facade. Mr. Whallon stated he appreciated the opportunity for DRB and Staff review. He stated it was difficult to meet the retailer’s needs as well as correspond to the Entryway Corridor guidelines. He stated the drive-thru and service entry would be necessary and it was a site issue due to pedestrians needing to cross in those locations. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that he concurred with Staff recommendations as they were very appropriate. He noted it might not be possible to place a building of the proposed size on the lot if the setbacks and rights of way were observed. Chairperson Livingston asked the nearest the building or parking could be to the setbacks. Mr. Krueger explained the distances for the setbacks and directed the DRB to roughly where that location would be on the site plan; adding that shared access would be encouraged. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted the applicant would need to provide ~60 parking spaces. Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and Staff recommendations. He suggested the design might be more appropriate for a N. 19th Avenue location. He stated the proposed suburban feel was not in keeping with the N. 7th Avenue Design & Connectivity Plan. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations; adding that N. 7th Avenue had always been urban/industrial and suggested moving the structures closer to the lot lines. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated there had been tremendous amounts of energy and input from the committee developing the N. 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan and those two points of connectivity (Durston Road & North 7th Avenue) would be critical to the plan. He stated the proposed architecture was an 80’s or 90’s design and suggested the applicant read the Connectivity Plan to present a proposal that would establish the design of the new North 7th 278 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 4 Avenue Corridor and set a precedent for the rest of the projects in that area. Chairperson Livingston stated the design of the project from a site standpoint was precisely what the N. 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan was trying to avoid. He stated business and property owners on N. 7th Avenue were attempting to give the street its own identity. He stated he thought it was a great intersection with potential to be the anchor of the Corridor. He suggested another model be used for the proposal and suggested moving the structure to the lot line and moving the parking to the rear. Mr. Whallon stated he did not know how to site plan a proposal that would need to include a drive-thru and service area unless pedestrians were forced to cross in those locations to enter or exit the establishment. Chairperson Livingston suggested Mr. Whallon investigate a wholly new design for the proposed structure. Mr. Banziger suggested the applicant consider the design of banks to provide ideas for the redesign. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that when Bozeman burdened a tenant or landowner with something outside of their control, they were more considerate of variances or deviations; suggesting the applicant should investigate those avenues of approval. Planner Krueger responded that he project would be allowed to request deviations of up to 20% beyond or below the standards. Chairperson Livingston suggested the materials and colors palette be more in keeping with downtown Bozeman to appear more substantial and anchor the corner of the site. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. 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 5,995 square foot restaurant including the sale of alcohol and related site improvements Tom Milleson joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting the City Commission’s decision regarding the design of the proposal. He stated he had provided a memo and two elevations for DRB review. He stated Staff had been supportive of the proposal, as they had been for most of the review process, and Mr. Milleson had provided materials that had not been proposed before. He stated the overwhelming majority of Staff had preferred the proposal with the tower element included. He stated the muted language from the DOP had been addressed and non-traditional materials had been proposed. He stated the orientation and use of the proposed metal material and wire mesh would work very well even though the DOP did not specifically call out those materials. He stated the applicant had met Staff and DRB recommendations regarding the display window and glazing. Mr. Milleson stated he had taken a fresh look at the proposal and had changed the materials. He stated the entryway had been opened up and the structure had been brightened up with colors other than tans and browns. He stated the tower element would be crucial to anchor the corner of the site; adding that the site was far enough away from other structures with tower features. He stated the owner had allowed a way to get the real window in on the east side of the structure and he thought it was a much better design. Mr. Howe asked how many proposed TV sets were lost to the institution of a real window on the elevation. Mr. Milleson responded that only one TV had been lost. 279 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 5 Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if Mr. Milleson had a sense of what the materials and color palette would cost compared to the previously proposed materials. Mr. Milleson responded it would be less expensive. Mr. Banziger asked if the wire mesh screen would be inside the entire interior of the columns. Mr. Milleson responded that it would. Mr. Banziger asked if the sign would be on the screen material. Mr. Milleson responded it would. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated Mr. Milleson’s study between the two proposed elevations and he agreed with Staff that the option with the tower features would be a better design. He stated he was excited that the applicant had gotten rid of the lick & stick stone and used real materials that would complement the project and the surrounding area. Mr. Howe concurred with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations. He stated Mr. Rea would be glad to see the red color used for the building facade. He stated he was still concerned with the location of the TV’s within the patio causing glaring outside to N. 19th Avenue. Planner Krueger responded the glare would be checked at the time the applicant applied for occupancy of the structure and the issue would be addressed at that time. Chairperson Livingston asked Mr. Milleson if there was a column missing on one set of plans. Mr. Milleson responded that there was a column missing. Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the applicant had done a good job. He stated he did not want to know if the floorplan had changed or not as the entrances and exits appeared to be in the right locations, and he appreciated the removal of the arch. He stated the materiality was great and Mr. Milleson had done a tremendous job in furthering the proposal through the review process. Mr. Banziger added he thought the patio area really added to the proposal. MOTION: Mr. Petnecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0. 2. Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z-06214 (Krueger) Baxter Lane * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a four-story hotel with ~90 rooms and related site improvements. Greg Allen and Harry Howard joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal had first been seen by the DRB in September of 2006. He noted the location of the project and previous comments from the DRB. He stated the proposal had been put on hold to provide time for discussion of different options and directions from Staff being generally supportive of those options. He stated the project had been re-noticed and had been taken back to the DRC for a two week review. He stated the building had been reoriented and he had not looked to see if the actual footprint had changed. He stated the southern orientation of the courtyard was a major change from the original proposal. He stated he did not re-review the DOP criteria for the DRB memo, but he would be happy to provide clarification 280 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 6 for those items as needed. He stated Staff supported the project, but with a substantial number of conditions of approval. He stated Staff had to determine whether or not the changes to the elevations and site plan were significant enough to discuss modifications to the conditions of approval. He stated the bulk of his comments would be related to the proposed building elevations. He stated the reoriented building would still provide the main entrance in the same location facing the main public avenue and the front yard of the structure would be on Baxter Lane. He stated the color and materials palette would be key for a building of the proposed size; adding that it was the largest building being proposed for that area. He stated Staff felt that there was an over emphasis on EFIS proposed for the structure. He stated the pitched roof had been removed, but it caused more emphasis to be placed on a solid 50 foot high wall (3 stories of EFIS material). He stated the language of the building had become more modern and Staff was supportive with the orientation and form of the building. He noted that the scale of the building with that much EFIS proposed would not provide the human scale required in the DOP. He suggested that higher quality materials in combination with EFIS would be more appropriate, there should be definition between the floors, and the northeast corner would be a blank façade and would need more fenestration. He stated that the DRC had discussed a boulevard sidewalk along Baxter Lane and had suggested the front entrance extend into the front yard to draw the eye to the entrance. He stated that some of the building ends had large expanses of EFIS with no character and suggested the institution of additional fenestration (i.e. glazing). He recommended that the secondary building entrances from the parking lot be covered to provide definition and give assistance to the blank elevations. He stated Staff was suggesting a clarification for darker colored windows. He stated he recommended the DRB review the proposal prior to FSP approval to ensure that the conditions were met. He stated the building was double-fronted and the applicant would be allowed more signage and that the signage be accurately depicted on the Final Site Plan. He stated the character emerging with the building would need to be tied into the other site amenities and that Staff recommended the detention ponds be instituted as a landscaped feature. He stated he liked the cornice detail as it was interesting with the steel channels and awnings. He stated there were a lot of comments regarding the brown tones proposed for the project, but he would let the applicant address those comments. Mr. Allen stated he would like to address the technical aspects of the proposal and Mr. Howard would address the design aspects of the proposal. He stated the applicant was in agreement with all but two of Staff’s conditions of approval. He stated that the proposed EFIS was meant to be more like stucco and explained the process of applying the material. He stated there was no mention of a percentage other than a 75% minimum of certain materials should be used; adding that the current proposal had less that the 75% minimum amount of EFIS. He stated windows had been added on many of the blank facades after hearing Staff comments. He stated the applicant was investigating an adobe brown color for the windows and assured the DRB that Homewood Suites would agree that no one wanted to see franchise architecture. Mr. Howard stated he was not an architect, but an artist, and added that he had seen Bozeman’s architecture develop over the years. He stated Bozeman was wrestling with light and shadows in their proposals. He stated a building of that size would need to appear strong with steel awnings creating a huge horizontal sweep to break up the facades (he cited the design of the YT building in the Tech Park). He stated he liked the idea of covering the entries from the parking lot and the applicant was open to suggestions regarding the color. Mr. Allen added that Brown Cow and Monastery Brown were the proposed colors. He stated there were no expansion joints in the stucco, but there would be natural hairline cracks to create fenestration. Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Allen if the window surfaces would be flush with the building or inset. Mr. Allen responded the 281 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 7 lodge windows would have insets of 3 to 4 inches at the bottom and 2 to 3 inches at the top; adding that the other windows would be flush with the facade. Mr. Howe asked if the applicant was thinking of having the awning the same as the renderings provided. Mr. Allen responded they would be the same. Mr. Howe asked if the synthetic material would go on mesh and then substrate. Mr. Allen responded the substrate would be Dimsgold. Mr. Banziger asked if the YT Building were extended to four stories how would the design be altered. Mr. Howard responded it would include buttresses if it were four stories. Mr. Banzgier asked how there would be fenestration between the floors. Mr. Howard responded the light would be broken and shadows would provide fenestration. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what a proposed material was. Mr. Howard responded it would be cor ten metal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how far the metal would extend. Mr. Allen responded it would be 8-10 feet high. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there would be EFIS insulation at some point. Mr. Allen responded there would be some EFIS without insulation. Mr. Banziger asked how the proposed EFIS would hold up to the weather in Bozeman. Mr. Howard responded that over a waterproof hard board the EFIS would hold up quite well. Mr. Allen added that what they would use did not involve the use of foam and was a better, longer lasting product; adding that the new EFIS was a result of fixing the existing problems with applying EFIS. Mr. Grimes added that the new EFIS had been used for a wide variety of applications. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the finish he would feel with the proposed EFIS. Mr. Howard responded that it would have a bumpy texture. Chairperson Livingston stated he had missed a statement regarding the windows location with relation to the wall. Mr. Allen responded the statement had been that the windows would be slightly recessed. Chairperson Livingston asked if the window frame would be flush with the exterior wall. Mr. Allen responded they would be extended less than an inch; explaining that there would be depth outside of the nailing fin. Chairperson Livingston stated the new chemistry building at MSU would have a waterproof barrier that would contain the dew point outside of the waterproof barrier rather than putting the insulation inside the wall. Mr. Allen responded that with the regular insulation, the dew point would never get beyond the batting inside the wall. Mr. Howe stated he was struck by the difference of this proposal from the last one and it would be a very striking building. He stated it had a definite nuance of southwestern architecture despite the fact that it was sitting in the middle of a 5,000 foot elevation valley in Montana. He stated he thought Bozeman needed different types of structures and he liked the proposed colors. He stated the addition of the windows would be good, but could understand that some structures would need blank walls with no windows. He stated the cornice detailing was really nice and he had no problem with the proposed materials. He noted the project was not proposing the same EFIS material that had been used for the last 20 years though he would not push for 75% EFIS, but liked the look of the material. Mr. Banziger stated the proposal had made a 180 degree turn that was refreshing for him to see. He stated he was happy with the fact that there would be more light allowed in structure. He stated he would be more likely to see broken-up facades if the rendering had been more detailed; suggesting that Mr. Howard provide more extensive drawings. Mr. Banziger stated he was being told one thing and being shown something else; the description was elegant, but would need to 282 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 8 be visualized. Mr. Krueger noted the project would ultimately be approved by the Planning Director and would not go to the City Commission. Mr. Banziger stated he would never buy into EFIS he had never seen it last or hold up well beyond 3 or 4 years. He stated he supported the proposal with Staff conditions. Mr. Howe asked if more detailing would be required from the applicant. Planner Krueger responded that if the DRB provided a recommendation of approval it would be forwarded to the Planning Director with Staff recommendations of approval and changes would be seen upon FSP submittal. He suggested a graphic be provided at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Banziger suggested the graphic might provide enough information to meet the conditions recommended by Staff. Mr. Pentcost stated the proposal had gone from the look of Yellowstone Park to somewhere in the southwest. He stated the scale and mass seemed appropriate though the proposal would have a huge impact on I-90. He stated he appreciated the departure in the form, but it appeared to be a 1980’s building. He said Legorretta was huge with Stucco design and his power lied in his use of color; adding that a 250 foot long building with solid Drivit was a tough pill to swallow. He stated real stucco would not work in Montana due to freeze/thaw and there would be no cracks in the fake stucco to provide fenestration. He stated he saw a massing model and an empty palette that could be appropriate for Montana; adding that the form could be maintained while changing the materials to be used. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions. He stated he was struggling with the materials palette and the climate in Montana made it necessary for the materials to have some horsepower to them. He suggested the applicant provide a building that they could be proud of. Chairperson Livingston stated the comments from the last DRB meeting included happiness that EFIS had not been proposed for the structure and that Bozeman had become Browntown. He stated the landscaping around the main drop-off area was not extensive enough and suggested instituting more landscaping in some locations. He stated he had mixed feelings regarding the YT buildings as he thought they were appropriate for their scale and not the scale of the proposal. He stated he liked the smaller scaled elevations the best in the proposal due to the single-story scale being appropriate for the proposed materials. He stated he heard criticism about the Hilton Garden Inn appearing as a large ice chest; adding that he wondered if the proposal would be any different. Mr. Howard responded that there would be 12 feet of metal on the buttresses and the EFIS would never be touched by humans; adding there were no shadow lines on the Hilton. Chairperson Livingston stated the wall surfaces would be much the same in this proposal. He stated the awnings would not be effective on any of the east, west, or north facades, but were instituted merely for superficial decorations. He stated he supported the proposal with Staff conditions with the exception of #9 because he would not want to see the item on Consent Agenda as it would be too late for modifications at that time. Mr. Howard noted that awnings would provide a pergola for patrons to look out of and there would be distilled light and shadows; adding that there might be something in the distilled nature of the building amongst the current busyness of the structures in Bozeman. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that the current proposal would work best as a massing model. Mr. Allen presented photographs of existing structures that had proposed an equal or greater amount of EFIS. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted that the City Commission had voiced their distaste for the use of EFIS. Mr. Allen responded that the DOP would need to be changed to reflect that EFIS would not be an allowable material. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he would have to refer to Planning Staff to determine whether the DOP had been met or not. Mr. Howe added that the DRB would only review the aesthetic design of the proposals and suggested that every one of 283 Design Review Board Minutes – June 13, 2007 9 the DRB members had expressed concern that EFIS would be used. Mr. Allen stated that the proposal could have been forced through on the merits of meeting all of the City requirements. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted he understood the intent of the documentation and had many of the same concerns when he was presenting proposals to the City as an architect. Mr. Allen asked if the proposal had been brick, would it have been approved. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded that the brick would work if it spoke to the scale, massing, and other materials proposed for the structure. Mr. Howard asked for clarification of what the DRB was asking. Chairperson Livingston responded the DOP addressed the intent of good design, but did not furnish the specific recipe for that design. He stated the document attempted to spell out methods by which structural designs would work. He stated his feeling was that the applicant felt there was something rich in what he had done and the DRB did not appear to see that. He stated the building was a different scale from what Mr. Howard had previously done. He suggested Mr. Howard present detailing of how the EFIS substance would work on such a massive scale; adding that it was a matter of perception. Mr. Banziger stated he heard the vision of the applicant but could not visualize it; adding that he would need to see a more specific example of how the proposed EFIS would work. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that he found himself wondering what fourteen feet of core ten steel would feel like. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z-06214 with Staff conditions. The motion died. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z- 06214 with Staff conditions and the revision of condition #9 to bring the proposal back as a regular agenda item instead of a consent agenda item. The motion died. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z- 06214. The motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Howe in opposition. 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 284 Subject Property Buffalo Wild Wings CUP COA [ Legend Ditch Stream TrailsN 19TH AVENUEBaxter Lane 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 Corporate Office 2923 Montana Ave Billings, MT 59101 Phone 406.256.6551 Fax 406.259.8627 www.buffalowildwings.com April 24, 2007 City of Bozeman Department of Planning & Community Development P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman MT 59771-1230 Re: Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar 1783 North 19th Avenue Bozeman MT 59718 Lot 2, Home Depot Minor Subdivision No. 319 CUP/COA #Z-06209 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is a formal request to reinitiate the review process for the above-referenced project. This project is being submitted for review by the Design Review Board with the intent of gaining their unanimous approval before bringing it back to the City Commission. Sincerely, Brad Anderson President 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 SITE/ROADWAY NS SERIES NeoSphere™ CLASSIC SPHERICAL LUMINAIRE 70 - 175W H.I.D. • 85W INDUCTION 306 NS1 Horizontal or Vertical Lamp 70-175W H.I.D. Clear Hemispherical Lens NS2 Horizontal Lamp 70-175W H.I.D. Clear Flat Lens NS3 Vertical Lamp 70-175W H.I.D. Translucent White Hemispherical Lens NS4 Vertical Lamp 85W 100,000 hour Induction Lamp Translucent White Hemispherical Lens FOUR VARIATIONS Table of Contents The NeoSphere™1 Area & Path Application 2-3 Design & Site Coordination 4-5 Optical Design / Versatility 8-9 Features 10-11 NS4 Induction Lamp 12-13 Specifications 16-17 Pole Ordering & Specifications 18-19 Allowable Pole E.P.A.20 Proportional Aid 21 Ordering NS1 & NS2 24-25 Ordering NS3 & NS4 26-27 Lamp & Electrical Data 28 Application Engineering Services 29 Photometrics: See separate NeoSphere™Photometric Catalog. SITE / AREA PARKING STRUCTURE ROADWAY ARCHITECTURAL FLOOD ACCENT LANDSCAPE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 60080 CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91716-0080 BUSINESS ADDRESS: 16555 EAST GALE AVENUE CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91745 U.S.A. PHONE 626 / 968-5666 FAX 626 / 369-2695 ENTIRE CONTENTS ©COPYRIGHT 1999 KIM LIGHTING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PATENTS PENDING www.kimlighting.com ISO 9001 Registered RvA Council for Accreditation Printed in U.S.A. 5503499182 Version 1.0 (8/06) 307 KKIIMM LIGHTING 1 NEOSPHERE™ T he sphere is a classic architectural form. It was the first contemporary shape used in outdoor lighting when the modern architectural era became rooted. During the 1960s the sphere was so widely used that the lighting industry simply referred to it as “The Lollypop”. The 1974 energy crisis was a turning point for the lighting industry, and ultimately doomed the sphere. Energy conscious specifiers realized that the sphere was one of the most inefficient luminaries ever invented. In fact, the sphere actually projected more light toward the sky than it directed toward the ground. Now, Kim Lighting has reinvented the sphere by integrating the latest technology into this classic form. The NeoSphere™ has all the features expected in today's outdoor lighting environment: Performance, Glare- Control, Vandal Resistance, Longevity, Ease of Maintenance and Architectural Relevance. Once again this classic shape can grace the outdoors without apology. Sphere Luminaire Circa 1965 • Classic Form • Performance • Glare Control • Vandal Resistance • Longevity • Kim Quality 308 KKIIMMLIGHTING3KKIIMMLIGHTING2AREA& PATHAPPLICATIONApplication VersatilityThe NeoSphere™ has an amazing ability tolook and function in harmony with many dif-ferent environments.This adaptive nature isthe product of classicdesign integrated withfunctional optics. The NeoSphere is at homein a strong architectural setting, or an openpark area where landscape is the principaltheme.ArchitecturalStrong vertical and horizontal lines resolvethemselves into a classic sphere that compli-ments contemporary or traditional architecture.In addition, the NeoSphere projects a highlyfunc-tional image along with strength and vandalresistance. As a design statement it says “Imay be a sphere, but I am the state-of-the-art in technology”.Open SpaceFor public spaces, parks or any landscapedarea, the NeoSphere functions as an unob-trusive yet powerful lighting element. Itssimple form becomes a part of thesitescape, while its pedestrian scale providesintimate lighting for pathways or whereverpeople circulate and congregate.FunctionWith a choice of vertical or horizontal lampoptics, types II, III, IV, and V Square distributionsplus three lens configurations, theNeoSphere is a versatile lighting instrument.All reflector systems are engineered formaximum pole spacing and superb uniformity ofillumination, while the three lens configura-tions offer a selection of brightness controland vandal protection. A 100,000 hour lampoption is available for installations whererelamping is to be avoided for decades.See page 13.• ArchitecturalCompatibility• Excellent for Parks and Public Spaces• Highly versatileoptics309 4KKIIMMLIGHTING5The Curvilinear design theme can be carried intoparking garage lighting with Kim’s PGL1HP, PGL2and PGL3 (Parking Garage Luminaires). Thesehigh performance luminaires are the most innova-tive and versatile fixtures available for today’sparking structures. For the top deck, any of thepole mounted luminaires at left are ideal, includingthe NeoSphere.KKIIMMLIGHTINGDESIGN& SITECOORDINATIONPole mounted luminaires should beavoided in close proximity to the archi-tecture. Yet, high light levels are usuallyneeded around the building for security.The Kim WD (Wall Director) and WF (WallForms) are high performance luminairesspecifically designed to complement thearchitecture as an integral part of the struc-ture, and continue the design theme for allluminaires from parking lot to building.Planters and retaining wallsare the ideal elements tobegin integrating outdoorlighting into the sitescape.Kim’s WF (Wall Forms)luminaires providedesigncontinuity and performancelighting in a rugged fixtureengineered for mountingwithin concrete, brick, stone,or plaster walls.Transitioning from theparking lot to pedestrianareas creates the needfor reduced luminairescale and simplicity. TheNeoSphere is perfect forlighting pathways, drive-ways, courtyards andpark areas because itsclassic form and sizerelates to these humanspaces. For more intimateareas, Kim’s VRB (VandalResistant Bollard) is theideal solution providingFor large parking areas,Kim’s VL (Vertical Lamp)and CC Series (HorizontalLamp) luminaires are highlyefficient and architecturallyrelevant. Curvilinear shapeshave been utilized for mini-mum wind resistance whichallows for lighter and lessexpensive poles. Theseluminaires are available infour sizes with HID lampmodels from 70W. to 1000W.Single or multiple head con-figurations coupled withmany available light distri-butions means tremendousapplication versatility.• Design Logic• Luminaire Family Unity• Single source– KIMWall MountedParking Garage FloodlightingSitescapePathways & CourtyardsParking LotsKim’s AFL (Series Floodlights) arethe industry standard for perform-ance and architectural compatibility.Generally located near the building,these floodlights perform their taskwhile continuing the design themewith elegant curvilinear simplicity.smaller scale, low bright-ness & extremely ruggedconstruction. The curvilin-ear forms and fixturedetail-ing maintain a family rela-tionship to the larger park-ing lot luminaires.KIM Theory of RelativityThe Kim Theory of Relativity saysthat design logic should alwaysexist between outdoor lightingand architecture. This design logic must bea relationship between form and scale thatprovides functional outdoor lighting in har-mony with the site and architecture. Thetheory says:Pole-mounted luminaries belong inparking lots where high mountingheights and lamp wattage are theonly energy-efficient way to lightsuch large areas. However, once youleave the parking lot and begin thetransition toward the building, out-door lighting equipment should con-tinuously decrease in scale until itultimately becomes an integral partof the sitescape and architecture.At some point in this transition, theoutdoor lighting disappears into thearchitectural scheme allowing theviewer to experience the architecturewithout distracting hardware.All lighting equipment must alsohave a common theme design.310 KKIIMM LIGHTING 311 KKIIMM LIGHTING312 KKIIMMLIGHTING9KKIIMMLIGHTING8• Vertical andHorizontallamp modes• Multiple lightdistributions• Efficiency andUniformity• Three lensconfigurations• Twin MountVariationsTwin Mount VariationsBecause the NeoSphere can be rotated 360° on any ofits mountings, twin arm mounting can produce a varietyof light patterns without changing the armorientation. This allows a more uniform visualsite appearance if desired. The examples atright are variations that can be achieved usingasymmetric light distributions II, III or IV.Horizontal & Vertical LampAvailable light distributions and luminaire lens configurations.Type II Type IIIType IIIType IV Type V Sq.Type V Sq.NS2NS3NS4NS1Clear Hemispherical Acrylic Available in both horizontal andvertical lamp modes, this modelproduces extra sparkle from thelens, which also visually com-pletes the spherical luminaireshape. Optional polycarbonate isavailable for vandal prone areas.Flat Glass LensThis model should be selectedfor maximum brightness control.Also, a black or dark bronze fix-ture finish will soften brightnessby reducing reflections from thesupport arms. Only horizontallamp modes are available in thismodel.Translucent White Acrylic Available in a vertical lampmode only, this lens projects asoft glow that is more visible froma distance. It also visually com-pletes the spherical luminaireshape both day and night.Because the lens is diffuse, onlya standard Type V round lightpattern is available. Optionalpolycarbonate is also available.NS1NS2NS3/4Type II Type IIIType VType VType IV Type V Sq.OPTICALDESIGN/VERSATILITYHorizontal Lamp OpticsKim horizontal lamp reflector systems are engineered toproduce sharp cutoff, wide pole spacing and excellentuniformity of illumination. Each reflector type is a selfcontained module that is easily removable for ballastaccess. Four light distributions are available plus a louveredhouseside shield for areas where light trespass ontoadjacent property must be reduced. Horizontal lampmodes should be selected for the NeoSphere where thehighest degree of brightness control is needed, plus theapplication flexibility of having four light distributions tocover various site geometrics. Two lens configurationsare also available: Flat glass, or clear acrylic (polycar-bonate optional) in a hemispherical shape. See page 9for selection criteria.Available light distributions:Type II Type III Type IV Type V SquareVertical Lamp OpticsKim vertical lamp reflectors have been engineered toproduce the widest possible light throw while creatingoutstanding uniformity of illumination. Because of thevery wide throw, these reflector systems produce greaterhigh-angle fixture brightness which can have numerousbenefits. In general, fixture brightness makes the outdoorlighting more apparent from a distance giving visitors amore secure feeling that they are about to enter a welllighted area. It also advertises that a business is open,creating a more inviting atmosphere.Each reflectortype isa self-contained module; easily removed mounting screwsutilize keyhole slots for ballast access. Three light distri-butions are available, with a houseside shield option forthe Type III asymmetric. Two hemispherical lens config-urations are also available: Clear or translucent whiteacrylic with polycarbonate optional for vandal proneareas. See page 9 for selection criteria.Available light distributions:Type III Type V Square Type V At low angles,bare lampillumination ismore thanadequate.The eliminationof downwardreflecting sur-faces greatlyincreasesuniformity.A specularpeened upperreflector spreadslight into themidrangeavoiding anylow anglereflections.High Anglemaximumcandlepower& sharp cutoffare producedby the smoothspecular sidepanels.On Type III and Type V Sq.optical systems, Kim’ssplit-beam reflector geometrykeeps high angle reflectedlight from blockage by thelamp envelope. This greatlyimproves luminaireefficiency and lamp life.Note:All NeoSphere optical systems use coated lampsto eliminate shadows projected on the ground from theluminaires’ vertical support and lens guard system.Very high candlepower is generated at high anglesbecause the vertical lamp projects the majority ofits output toward the specular reflective surfaces.313 KKIIMMLIGHTING11KKIIMMLIGHTINGKKIIMMLIGHTING10• Die CastAluminumhousing• Injection moldedhemispheredlenses• Flat temperedglass lens• Totally sealedoptics• Eight stagefinish• QuickInstallation &maintenanceElectricalModuleFEATURESDie Cast AluminumComponentsThe NeoSphere housing and lens frame aredie cast aluminum for precision andrepeatability. These two major componentsare beautifully tied together with twin supportarms that complete the overall sphericalluminaire shape. Meticulous detailing isapparent throughout the luminaire with con-cealed housing hinges, a hidden latch screwand a pole mounting mechanism that elimi-nates all exposed fasteners at the pole top.Injection Molded LensesNS1, NS3, NS4For precision and clarity the F" thick hemi-spherical acrylic lenses are injection moldedto eliminate optical distortion. This also elim-inates density variations in the translucentwhite NS3 and NS4 lens. For vandal proneareas these lenses are available in UVstabilized polycarbonate.Tempered Glass Lens NS2Extra thick F" glass is used in the NS2 alongwith heat tempering to produce a lens withunusual strength and longevity. This flat lensconfiguration is ideal where maximum bright-ness control is desired. See page 9.Totally Sealed OpticsA hallmark of Kim luminaires is uncompro-mised sealing of the optical chamber, andthe NeoSphere is no exception. All gasketingfor the lens and housing is one piece siliconewhich has the highest heat rating and greatestmemory retention. This assures a repeatedseal after every relamping, and an opticalchamber free of dirt, bugs, and moisture. Italso assures maintained light efficiency overthe life of the luminaire.Eight Stage FinishThe NeoSphere is available in four standardKim colors plus custom color options. Allpaint is Super TGIC thermoset polyesterpowder coat applied over a chromate pre-treatment as illustrated at right.1. Power wash and degrease.2. Detergent tank bath.3. Clear water rinse bath.4. Chromate bath–the best knownpre-treatment of aluminum for corrosion resistance & paint adhesion.5. Clear water rinse bath.6. Dry off oven.7. Powder Coating–2.5 mil nominal thickness.8. Bake for 20 minutes at 410°F.2500 hour salt spray test rated.Moisture, air and insect barrierClear AcrylicDie Cast AluminumComponentsTranslucentWhite AcrylicClear FlatTempered GlassAluminumChromatePowder CoatEight stage finish processLamp Notice:All NeoSphere optical systems are designedfor Coated Lamps. The use of clear lampswill cause shadows from the support arms.Ease of InstallationThe NeoSphere attaches to its standard 4"diameter non-tapered pole by a single con-cealed center bolt that activates an internalexpansion device within the pole. No externalfasteners exist at the pole top. The ballast andall related electrical components are mountedon a single plate, with quick disconnect plugson the wiring. To facilitate easy installation ofthis ballast module, the reflector module isquickly and easily removed. After the reflectormodule and lamp are installed, the housingcloses and seals by a single screw concealedbetween two support arms.Ease of MaintenanceFor routine relamping, the NeoSphere housinghinges open by a single screw and is held in theopen position by a locking stop arm freeing bothhands for servicing. Should the ballast moduleneed servicing, the reflector module quickly re-moves for easy access. For projects where fixturedowntime must be minimal, extra ballast modulesmay be ordered. Should a ballast fail, one of thestored modules can be immediately installed whilethe failed ballast can be replaced and stored as afuture replacement. The NeoSphere optical cham-ber is so well sealed that generally the only main-tenance is a light cleaning during relamp. Anotherconsideration for easy maintenance is the use ofhinged poles available for the NeoSphere inheights of up to 14 feet. See pages 18 and 19.314 KKIIMMLIGHTING13KKIIMMLIGHTING12NS4100,000 HOUR➊INDUCTIONLAMP27 years at 10 hoursoperation per nightNS4 NeoSphereApplications:• Airports• Apartments• Bridges• Condominiums• Correctional Facilities• Entertainment Centers• Parks• Parking Structures• Public Buildings• Railway Stations• Resorts• Roadways• Schools• Shopping CentersAny location whererelamping is expensive,difficult, dangerous,highly disruptive, orwhere liability from lampoutage is a concern.ConceptThe Induction Lamp is not simply an advancement inexisting lamp systems. It is a totally new technology thatbrings with it unprecedented benefits in economy andperformance. The Induction Lamp needs no electrodesor filament as in conventional discharge and incandes-cent lamps. These are the primary lifetime-determiningcomponents in most light sources, and are also subjectto progressively declining performance during their life.In this new lamp, light generation is by means of induction— the transmission of energy via a magnetic field —combined with a gas discharge.Features & Benefits•Ultra-long lamp life;< 20% failure at 60,000 hours, and< 50% failure at 100,000 hours. See figure 1.•Excellent lumen maintenance;over 70% of initial lightoutput is maintained after 60,000 hours. See figure 2.•Good efficiency;85 Watt lamp rated at 6000 lumens or70 lumens per watt. Comparable output to 70 Watt HighPressure Sodium.•Excellent color;4000°K. white light, CRI ≥80, no colordeviation.•Electronic control;fluctuations in supply voltage havea negligible effect on light output, >0.9 power factor,–20°C. (–4°F.) starting.•Fast run-up time;>80% light output in 10 seconds.•Instant restart;< 0.1 seconds.•High frequency operation;no flickering, noise orstroboscopic effect.NS4 NeoSphereKim Lighting supplies the complete Philips InductionLamp system with every NS4 model. This includes thefixture with a translucent white hemispherical lens, areflector producing a type V distribution, and a singlemounting plate containing the Induction Lamp and HFgenerator. The Induction Lamp system is always sold asa complete lamp and HF generator unit for futurerelampings. The NeoSphere is ideally suited for the ultralong life of the Induction Lamp because the opticalchamber is completely sealed for years of maintenancefree operation and our eight stage finish process willlook good for years to come.Introducing the Philips Induction LampFigure 1:Life expectancy of Induction Lampsystem;average failure rate vs burning hours.Figure 2:Lumen depreciation of Induction Lampsystem; % of initial light output vs. burning hours.• Ultra long life• Good Efficiency• Soft White light• Excellentoperatingcharacteristics➊100908070605040302010020000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Survivals in %Burning Hours100908070605040302010020000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Lumen in %Burning HoursFerrte Core(inside)Fluorescent CoatingHeat Conducting RodHF GeneratorCoaxial CableMountingFlangeAntennaCoil315 Excellentfor parksand publicspaces.316 KKIIMMLIGHTING17KKIIMMLIGHTING16Option SpecificationsWall Mounting: A cast aluminum mounting bracket isfurnished for attachment to wall, (Attachment meansand strength of wall by others). An optional WEB (WallEmbedment Bracket) is available for casting intopoured-in-place concrete walls. Bracket is galvanizedsteel with receptacles for two C" bolts provided.Extruded aluminum oval arm is factory assembled toan extruded aluminum fixture support riser and a castaluminum wall cover plate. Fixture riser has a cast alu-minum bottom cap, and wall cover plate has a remov-able cast aluminum cover for field splice access.Complete arm assembly can be mounted before fieldsplices are made. All arm, cap and cover plate com-ponents are curvilinear forms to match the fixturedesign, and all components are mechanicallyattached with no visible welds or fasteners. All wallcomponents are finished to match the fixture. For FM(Flush Mount) fixtures only.Twin Arm Mount: Two extruded aluminum oval armsare supplied with internal concealed draw bolts forattachment to Kim 4" O.D. poles with predrilled mountingholes (see page 18 & 19). Arms are 180° apart, suppliedwith an internal pole reinforcing plate with wire strainrelief and an extruded aluminum riser for mounting FM(Flush Mount) fixtures only. A cast aluminum pole capand matching riser cap are included, and all compo-nents are mechanically fastened to eliminate weldsand visible fasteners.Optional Fusing:High temperature fuse holders factoryinstalled inside the fixture housing.Single fusing (SF) for120V, 277V, 347V or double fusing (DF) for 208V, 240V.Optional Photocell: Photocell is factory prewiredinside fixture housing with sensor located externallybetween two support ribs. For twin arm mount, eachfixture has a photocell.Optional Polycarbonate Lens: One piece UV stabi-lized F" thick injection molded polycarbonate hemi-spherical lens replaces standard acrylic lens in NS1,NS3 or NS4. Full silicone gasketing top and bottom.CAUTION: Use only when vandalism is anticipated tobe high. Useful life is limited by UV discoloration fromsunlight and metal halide lamps.Optional Houseside Shield: For horizontal lampreflectors H2, H3, and H4 only, a louvered shield isprovided in stamped clear anodized aluminum topass streetside light while restricting houseside light.For vertical lamp reflector V3 only, a dished clearanodized aluminum shield is provided. Shields arefactory installed to the reflector.PhotocellPolycarbonate LensHorizontalLamp ModelsVerticalLamp ModelsTwin Arm MountHouseside ShieldsWall MountNeosphere with optionalWall Embedment Bracket 4J"10J"5F"Fixture SpecificationsHousing:One piece die cast aluminum with integral hinge and supportarm extensions that continue upward from the lens frame. Housinghinges upward for lamp and ballast access, and is held in the openposition by a stainless steel self-locking stop arm freeing both hands forservicing. Hinge pin is stainless steel and the housing gasket is onepiece silicone.Lens Frame:One piece die cast aluminum with integral hinge and foursets of twin support arms at 90° intervals. Support arms form a spheri-cal shape and blend with the housing support arm extensions. A singlestainless steel socket head screw is held captive between two supportarms for securing the housing. Three lens types are offered: NS1-clearF" thick injection molded UV stabilized acrylic hemisphere; NS2-clearflat F" thick tempered glass; NS3 and NS4-translucent white F" thickinjection molded UV stabilized acrylic hemisphere, (Optional polycar-bonate available, see pages 17,26 & 27). Lenses are held in the lensframe by stainless steel clips and sealed by a one piece silicone gas-ket. Hemispherical lenses are also sealed at the support hub by a onepiece silicone gasket. The integral support hub contains a field-splicecompartment, a silicone gasketed cover and one of the following poleattachment means:FM-Flush post top mount by means of an expansion device activatedby a single bolt within the splice compartment. Pole must have asquare-cut plain top. Standard pole size is 4" O.D. (3C" O.D. poleadapter available upon request).PT-Pole tenon mounting by means of a cast aluminum adapter con-taining four recessed C" stainless steel allen head set point screws.Pole must have a 2" pipe tenon (2C" O.D. X 4K" min. length). Pole tenonmust be field drilled at one set screw location to insure against fixturerotation.Horizontal Lamp Reflector Modules H2, H3, H4, H5:Specular Alzak®optical segments rigidly mounted in an aluminum frame which snapsinto and out of the housing as a one piece module. All “H” reflector mod-ules are interchangeable. Sockets are porcelain medium base rated4KV, wired to a disconnect plug for the electrical module. Optical cham-ber is totally sealed by silicone gaskets at the Housing/Lens Frameinterfaces.Vertical Lamp Reflector Modules V3, V5:Specular Alzak®optical seg-ments mounted within a one piece spun aluminum shell. NS4 InductionLamp model is spun aluminum bright dip Alzak®. Reflector modulesattach to housing with keyhole slots and are interchangeable. Socketsare porcelain medium base rated 4KV and supported around theirperimeter by a silicone sleeve press-fit between the socket and a heat-sink extrusion. Sockets are wired to a disconnect plug for the electricalmodule, optical chamber is totally sealed by silicone gaskets at theHousing/Lens frame interface.Electrical Module: All electrical components are U.L. and C.S.A. rec-ognized, mounted on a single aluminum plate with keyhole slots forquick attachment or removal from the housing. All components areprewired to disconnect plugs, and all ballast are high power factor ratedfor -40°F.(HPS) and -20°F. (MH) starting. For the NS4 Induction Lampmodel, a complete HF generator and Induction Lamp system is fur-nished mounted to the aluminum plate. Induction Lamp System is highpower factor rated for -4°F, starting. (See Page 13 for other data).Finish: Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint. Standardcolors are Black, Dark Bronze, Light Gray, or White. Powder Coating is2.5 mil nominal thickness over a chromate pretreatment; 2500 hour saltspray test endurance rating. Custom colors are available and subject toadditional charges, minimum quantities and longer lead times. Consultrepresentative.Certification: Fixture is U.L. and U.L.C. listed for wet location 1572.16E"15K"4L"FM-Flush MountTypical NS2fixture shownHemisphericallens shown4" diameter polePole with 2"pipe size tenon(2C" O.D. X 4K"minimum length).PT-Tenon MountWarning: Fixtures must be grounded inaccordance with local codes or the NationalElectrical Codes. Failure to so may result inserious personal injury.SPECIFICATIONSFixture EPA Max WeightSingle Mount: 1.0 30 lbsTwin Mount: 3.0 70 lbsLamp Notice:All NeoSphere optical systems are designedfor Coated Lamps. The use of clear lampswill cause shadows from the support arms.7E"17K"17K"7E"317 KKIIMMLIGHTING19KKIIMMLIGHTING18Catalog NumberPole FinishPole OptionsPRA10-4125FM / BL-P / HB / DROrdering Examples:For a single FM flush mounted fixture.Shaft: is round non-tapered extruded aluminum, alloy 6063-T6, suppliedwith a hand hole complete with gasketed cover & flush allen head screws.For twin mount, pole is drilled to accept two side arms at 180°, and a castaluminum pole cap is provided.Standard Fixed Base:Cast aluminum alloy 356 fully welded to shaft attop and bottom of base casting.Grounding:One J"-20 green screw inside hand hole.Anchorage:Four fully galvanized L-hook anchor bolts complete witheight nuts, eight washers and a rigid pressed board template.Anchor Bolt Size:L" x 15" + 3"; 8' to 14' poles.L" x 30" + 4"; 16' pole. PoleBolt Anchor BaseCatalogPole Shaft Circle Bolt Cover ConduitNumberHeight Size Dia. Projection Size Opening*PRA8-4125FM08' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA10-4125FM10' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA12-4125FM12' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA14-4125FM14' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA14-4188FM14' 4"x .188 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.PRA16-4188FM16' 4"x .188 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.PoleBolt Anchor BaseCatalogPole Shaft Circle Bolt Cover ConduitNumberHeight Size Dia. Projection Size Opening*PRA8-4125SB08' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA10-4125SB10' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA12-4125SB12' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA14-4125SB14' 4"x .125 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.*PRA14-4188SB14' 4"x .188 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.PRA16-4188SB16' 4"x .188 8K"3J"11E" dia. 3"dia.Standard Finish:Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint2.5 mil nominal thickness applied over a chromate pretreatment. 2500hour salt spray test endurance rating.BL-PBlackDB-PDark BronzeLG-PLight GrayWH-PWhiteCustom colors available and subject to additional charges, minimumquantities and longer lead times. Consult representative.*HB Optional Hinged Base: Available up to 14' height only. Cast alu-minum alloy 356 fully welded to shaft at top and bottom of base casting.A removable hinge pin allows full 90° lowering or removal. Two piececast aluminum base cover is provided with stainless steel screws. Usessame anchor bolt circle as standard fixed base.For twin mount only, add HBand hinging direction toConduit ordering sequence. Example: HB-X1 (See right)▲Hinged Base Max. ConduitProjection Above Footing: 1D"Optional Duplex Receptacles: Mounted opposite handhole in acast aluminum box, internally welded and sealed with gasketedself-closing cover and locking bracket.DRDuplex Receptacle rated 15A., 125V.DR-GFIDuplex Receptacle with Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter rated 15A., 125V.POLEORDERING& SPECIFICATIONSShaftSizePole Ht.8'10'12'14'16'18"HandHoleMust be GroutedAnchorBoltProjectionBase CoverDiameterBolt CircleDia.▲Standard BaseOptional Hinged BaseHinging DirectionsPlan ViewTwin MountX1X2Y2Y1Aluminum PolesRound Non-TaperedCatalog NumberPole Finish Pole OptionKRS10-4120SB / BL-P / DRFor twin mount with FM flush mounted fixtures.ShaftSizePole Ht.8'10'12'14'16'18"HandHoleMust be GroutedAnchorBoltProjection11E"Base CoverDiameterBolt CircleDia.Shaft: is round non-tapered low carbon steel ASTM-A500 Grade B,supplied with a hand hole complete with gasketed cover & flush allen headscrews. For twin mount, pole is drilled to accept two side arms at 180°, anda cast aluminum pole cap is provided.Standard Fixed Base:Steel ASTM-36, fully welded to shaft at top andbottom of base plate. (Hinged base not available).Grounding:One J"-20 green screw inside hand hole.Anchorage:Four fully galvanized L-hook anchor bolts complete witheight nuts, eight washers and a rigid pressed board template.Anchor Bolt Size:L" x 15" + 3"; 8' to 16' poles.PoleBolt AnchorCatalogPole Shaft Circle Bolt Base ConduitNumberHeight Size Dia. Projection Size OpeningKRS8-4120FM08' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS10-4120FM10' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS12-4120FM12' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS14-4120FM14' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS16-4120FM16' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.PoleBolt AnchorCatalogPole Shaft Circle Bolt Base ConduitNumberHeight Size Dia. Projection Size OpeningKRS8-4120SB08' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS10-4120SB10' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS12-4120SB12' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS14-4120SB14' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.KRS16-4120SB16' 4"x .11ga. 7-8K"3C" L" x 9"sq. 3"dia.Standard Finish:Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint2.5 mil nominal thickness applied. 1000 hour salt spray test endurancerating.BL-PBlackDB-PDark BronzeLG-PLight GrayWH-PWhiteCustom colors available and subject to additional charges, minimumquantities and longer lead times. Consult representative.Optional Duplex Receptacles: Mounted opposite handhole in acast aluminum box, internally welded and sealed with gasketedself-closing cover and locking bracket.DRDuplex Receptacle rated 15A., 125V.DR-GFIDuplex Receptacle with Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter rated 15A., 125V.Ordering Examples:Steel PolesRound Non-Tapered318 KKIIMM LIGHTING20 EPA ratings are for wind map steady wind x 1.3 standard gust factor. EPA ratings are based on AASHTO standards. Allowable pole EPA for jobsite wind conditions must be equal or greater than fixture EPA. Wind Speeds Pole Cat. No. 70/91 80/104 90/117 100/130 110/143 PRA8-4125FM 11.0 8.3 6.2 4.8 3.9 PRA10-4125FM 8.3 6.0 4.3 3.2 2.6 PRA12-4125FM 6.3 4.3 3.0 2.0 1.2 PRA14-4125FM 4.7 3.0 1.8 1.1 – PRA14-4188FM 8.9 6.2 4.4 3.2 2.5 PRA16-4188FM 6.9 4.6 3.1 2.1 1.6 PRA8-4125SB 11 8.3 6.2 4.8 3.9 PRA10-4125SB 8.3 6.0 4.3 3.2 – PRA12-4125SB 6.3 4.3 3.0 – – PRA14-4125SB 4.7 3.0 – – – PRA14-4188SB 8.9 6.2 4.4 3.2 – PRA14-5188SB 15.0 11.0 8.6 6.8 5.5 PRA16-4188SB 6.9 4.6 3.1 – – PRA16-5188SB 12.0 8.6 6.6 5.2 4.1 KRS8-4120FM 21.6 16.5 12.7 10.1 8.3 KRS10-4120FM 16.9 12.5 9.5 7.4 6.0 KRS12-4120FM 13.4 9.8 7.2 5.6 4.5 KRS14-4120FM 10.8 7.7 5.5 4.1 3.3 KRS16-4120FM 8.5 5.9 4.0 2.9 2.2 KRS8-4120SB 21.6 16.5 12.7 10.1 8.3 KRS10-4120SB 16.9 12.5 9.5 7.4 6.0 KRS12-4120SB 13.4 9.8 7.2 5.6 4.5 KRS14-4120SB 10.8 7.7 5.5 4.1 3.3 KRS16-4120SB 8.5 5.9 4.0 – – Wind Map Steady Wind Gusting Wind Equivalent Allowable Pole EPA Fixture EPAs:Single 1.0 • Twin 3.0 100 100 100 100 110 110 100 100 9080 70 60 60 90 80 80 70 90 80 70 70 80 90 100 80 70 70 80 90 80 70 90 90 90 90 90 110 110 100 100 100110 110100 80 70 70 70 80 80 80 70 80 90 70 70 70 80 70 90 90 90 80 Wind Map Ref: AASHTO 1985 Allowable pole EPA for jobsite wind conditions must be equal to or greater than fixture EPA. Responsibility lies with the specifier for correct pole selection based on AASHTO wind map and job location. •Caution:Wind speeds and listed EPAs are for ground mounted installations. Poles mounted on structures (such as bridges and buildings) must consider vibra- tion and coefficient of height factors beyond this gen- eral guide. Consult AASHTO standards. •Extreme Wind Events:Hurricanes, Typhoons, Cyclones, or Tornadoes expose poles to flying debris, wind shear, and other unpredictable aerodynamic forces not indicated by the wind velocity ratings. Consult factory for special pole requirements where risk of exposure to extreme wind conditions exists. •Pole Strength Limited Warranty:Standard, unmodi- fied Kim lighting Poles installed as recommended, undamaged by corrosion, or lack of maintenance, shall withstand steady wind conditions as provided in the Kim Pole Specification Sheets (allowable Pole EPA). Installation of poles without luminaires, or attachment of any unauthorized accessories to poles shall void this warranty. •Please see the Kim Poles Catalog for more information on pole mounting NeoSphere™fixtures. ALLOWABLE POLE EPA Notes: •Values are based on 50 year mean recurrence inter- val, 30'above grade. •Hawaii has an 80 mph wind velocity. •Puerto Rico has a 95 mph wind velocity. •Caution must be exercised in determining wind velocities in special wind areas such as: Mountainous Regions Areas surrounding the Great Lakes or other large bodies of water or open land. Areas subject to extreme wind conditions, such as hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, and tornadoes. Areas adjacent to airports. Any specific area with a known or suspected abnormally high intermittent wind condition caused by geography, adjacent structures, or other spe- cific local conditions that may not be recorded in National Weather Service records. •The Wind Map is intended only as a general guide. Always consult local authorities to determine maxi- mum wind velocities, gusting and unique wind condi- tions for each specific application. 319 KKIIMM LIGHTING 21 PROPORTIONAL AID 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 12' 14' 16' 18' As a pedestrian scale luminaire, the NeoSphere is most commonly mounted on 8' to 16' poles. Within this height range, the 16E" fixture diameter cou- pled with the standard 4" pole diameter provides pleasing proportions. Because some cities have mounting height restrictions, the NeoSphere is an ideal luminaire. Wide throw light distributions also provide outstanding uniformity of illumination. This translates to maximum pole spacing ratios and economy in terms of initial cost plus long term energy conservation. Mounting Height 320 KKIIMM LIGHTING 321 KKIIMM LIGHTING322 KKIIMMLIGHTING25KKIIMMLIGHTING24FM/NS1H2/70HPS120/BL-P/SF/A-30/PRA12-4125FM/BL-PMountingConfigurationFixture /Reflector Electrical Module Finish Fusing Options Pole1 23 4 5 6-910See pages 18 & 20 for PoleOrdering & Specifications.Omit for 1W Wall Mount.2SB/1SingleFixtureTwinMount1W/1WallMountNS222Fixture:Catalog number designatesfixture and lens type.11MountingConfiguration:Reflector:Catalog numberdesignates lamp orientationand light distribution.H= Horizontal Lamp33Electrical Module:Lamp Lamp LineWatts Type Volts175 MH 120Catalog numbers for Electrical Modules available for the NS2 fixture only.Cat. No:FMFlush MountCat. No:PTTenon MountCat. No:2SBTwin MountCat. No:1WWall Mount70HPS12070HPS20870HPS24070HPS27770HPS34770MH12070MH20870MH24070MH27770MH347100MH120100MH208100MH240100MH277100MH347175MH120175MH208175MH240175MH277175MH347150MH120150MH208150MH240150MH277150MH347100HPS120100HPS208100HPS240100HPS277100HPS347150HPS120150HPS208150HPS240150HPS277150HPS347Cat. No:NS2With flat temperedglass lens.MH= Metal HalideHPS= High Pressure SodiumCoated lamp by others.Ordering GuideNS1 & NS2Cat. No: Light DistributionH2Type IIH3Type IIIH4Type IVH5Type V Sq.MHHPS44Finish:Super TGIC powder coat paint.55Fusing:Fuse holder inside housing.66Optional Photocell:Factory installed insidehousing. One photocellper fixture.77OptionalPolycarbonate Lens:88OptionalHouseside Shield:99Optional WallEmbedment Bracket:For 1W Wall Mount.Cat. No: Color Cat. No: ColorBL-PBlackDB-PDark BronzeLG-PLight GrayWH-PWhiteCat No. Line VoltsA-30 120A-31 208A-32 240Cat No. Line VoltsA-33 277A-35 347Not available for NS2. Use NS1 if polycarbonate lens is desired. See page 24.Cat No.WEBFor poured concrete walls only.Custom colors subject to charges,minimum quantities and extendedlead times. Consult representative.Cat. No: SF Single fuse 120V, 277V, 347VCat. No: DF Double fuse 208V, 240VCat No.HSAvailable on type II, III & IV reflectors only.Horizontal LampINFORMATION& GUIDENS122Fixture:Catalog number designatesfixture and lens type.11MountingConfiguration:Reflector:Catalog numberdesignates lamp orientationand light distribution.H= Horizontal LampV= Vertical Lamp44Finish:Super TGIC powder coat paint.55Fusing:Fuse holder inside housing.66Optional Photocell:Factory installed insidehousing. One photocellper fixture.77Optional ClearPolycarbonate Lens:88OptionalHouseside Shield:99Optional WallEmbedment Bracket:For 1W Wall Mount.33Electrical Module:Lamp Lamp LineWatts Type Volts175 MH 120Cat. No: Light DistributionH2Type IIH3Type IIIH4Type IVH5Type V Sq.Catalog numbers for Electrical Modules available for the NS1 fixture only.Cat. No: Color Cat. No: ColorBL-PBlackDB-PDark BronzeLG-PLight GrayWH-PWhiteCat No. Line VoltsA-30 120A-31 208A-32 240Cat No. Line VoltsA-33 277A-35 347Cat No.CP(clear)Replaces standard acrylic lens.Cat No.WEBFor poured concrete walls only.Cat. No: Light DistributionV3Type IIIV5Type V Sq.Cat. No:FMFlush MountCat. No:PTTenon MountCat. No:2SBTwin MountCat. No:1WWall Mount70HPS12070HPS20870HPS24070HPS27770HPS34770MH12070MH20870MH24070MH27770MH347100MH120100MH208100MH240100MH277100MH347175MH120175MH208175MH240175MH277175MH347150MH120150MH208150MH240150MH277150MH347100HPS120100HPS208100HPS240100HPS277100HPS347150HPS120150HPS208150HPS240150HPS277150HPS347Cat. No:NS1With hemisphericalclear acrylic lens.Custom colors subject to charges,minimum quantities and extendedlead times. Consult representative.Photocell SensorPhotocell SensorMH= Metal HalideHPS= High Pressure SodiumCoated lamp by others.Cat. No: SF Single fuse 120V, 277V, 347VCat. No: DF Double fuse 208V, 240VORDERINGMHHPSCat No.HSAvailable on type II, III & IV reflectors only.Horizontal Lamp Vertical Lamp323 KKIIMMLIGHTING27KKIIMMLIGHTING26NS422Fixture:Catalog number designatesfixture and lens type.11MountingConfiguration:Reflector:Catalog numberdesignates lamp orientationand light distribution.V= Vertical Lamp33Electrical Module:Lamp Lamp LineWatts Type Volts85 IF 120Catalog numbers for Electrical Modules available for the NS4 fixture only.Cat. No:FMFlush MountCat. No:PTTenon MountCat. No:2SBTwin MountCat. No:1WWall Mount85IF12085IF20885IF24085IF277Cat. No:NS4With hemisphericaltranslucent white acrylic lens.IF=Induction LampLamp included.Cat. No: Light DistributionV5Type V44Finish:Super TGIC powder coat paint.55Fusing:Fuse holder inside housing.66Optional Photocell:Factory installed insidehousing. One photocellper fixture.77Optional WhitePolycarbonate Lens:88OptionalHouseside Shield:99Optional WallEmbedment Bracket:For 1W Wall Mount.Cat. No: Color Cat. No: ColorBL-PBlackDB-PDark BronzeLG-PLight GrayWH-PWhiteCat No. Line VoltsA-30 120A-31 208Cat No. Line VoltsA-32 240A-33 277Cat No.WP(white)Replaces standard acrylic lens.Cat No.WEBFor poured concrete walls only.Custom colors subject to charges,minimum quantities and extendedlead times. Consult representative.Photocell SensorCat. No: SF Single fuse 120V, 277VCat. No: DF Double fuse 208V, 240VNot available for NS4.NS322Fixture:Catalog number designatesfixture and lens type.11MountingConfiguration:Reflector:Catalog numberdesignates lamp orientationand light distribution.V= Vertical LampCat. No:FMFlush MountCat. No:PTTenon MountCat. No:2SBTwin MountCat. No:1WWall MountCat. No:NS3With hemisphericaltranslucent white acrylic lens.Cat. No: Light DistributionV5Type V44Finish:Super TGIC powder coat paint.55Fusing:Fuse holder inside housing.66Optional Photocell:Factory installed insidehousing. One photocellper fixture.77Optional WhitePolycarbonate Lens:88OptionalHouseside Shield:99Optional WallEmbedment Bracket:For 1W Wall Mount.33Electrical Module:Lamp Lamp LineWatts Type Volts175 MH 120Catalog numbers for Electrical Modules available for the NS1 fixture only.Cat. No: Color Cat. No: ColorBL-PBlackDB-PDark BronzeLG-PLight GrayWH-PWhiteCat No. Line VoltsA-30 120A-31 208A-32 240Cat No. Line VoltsA-33 277A-35 347Cat No.WP(white)Replaces standard acrylic lens.Cat No.WEBFor poured concrete walls only.70HPS12070HPS20870HPS24070HPS27770HPS34770MH12070MH20870MH24070MH27770MH347100MH120100MH208100MH240100MH277100MH347175MH120175MH208175MH240175MH277175MH347150MH120150MH208150MH240150MH277150MH347100HPS120100HPS208100HPS240100HPS277100HPS347150HPS120150HPS208150HPS240150HPS277150HPS347Custom colors subject to charges,minimum quantities and extendedlead times. Consult representative.MH= Metal HalideHPS= High Pressure SodiumCoated lamp by others.Cat. No: SF Single fuse 120V, 277V, 347VCat. No: DF Double fuse 208V, 240VMHHPSNot available for NS3.ORDERINGINFORMATION& GUIDEFM/NS3V5/70HPS120/BL-P/SF/A-30/PRA10-4125FM/BL-PMountingConfigurationFixture /Reflector Electrical Module Finish Fusing OptionsPole1 23 4 5 6-910See pages 18 & 20 for PoleOrdering & Specifications.Omit for 1W Wall Mount.2SB/1SingleFixtureTwinMount1W/1WallMountOrdering GuideNS3 & NS4Photocell Sensor324 KKIIMM LIGHTING28 M98 HX-HPF 120 90 1.90 M98 HX-HPF 208 90 1.00 M98 HX-HPF 240 90 0.90 M98 HX-HPF 277 90 0.80 M98 HX-HPF 347 90 0.65 M90 HX-HPF 120 129 2.60 M90 HX-HPF 208 129 1.50 M90 HX-HPF 240 129 1.30 M90 HX-HPF 277 129 1.15 M90 HX-HPF 347 129 1.00 M102 HX-HPF 120 185 3.65 M102 HX-HPF 208 185 2.10 M102 HX-HPF 240 185 1.80 M102 HX-HPF 277 185 1.58 M102 HX-HPF 347 185 1.25 M57 CWA 120 210 1.80 M57 CWA 208 210 1.04 M57 CWA 240 210 0.90 M57 CWA 277 210 0.80 M57 CWA 347 210 0.65 ED17 70W Coated Medium Base ED17 100W Coated Medium Base ED17 150W Coated Medium Base ED17 175W Coated Medium Base S62 R-HPF 120 91 1.45 S62 HX-HPF 208 91 0.85 S62 HX-HPF 240 91 0.75 S62 HX-HPF 277 91 0.65 S62 HX-HPF 347 91 0.55 S54 R-HPF 120 130 2.20 S54 HX-HPF 208 130 1.25 S54 HX-HPF 240 130 1.10 S54 HX-HPF 277 130 0.85 S54 HX-HPF 347 130 0.70 S55 R-HPF 120 188 2.80 S55 HX-HPF 208 188 1.60 S55 HX-HPF 240 188 1.40 S55 HX-HPF 277 188 1.25 S55 HX-HPF 347 188 0.92 120 86 0.72 – Electronic 208 86 0.42 240 86 0.36 277 90 0.35 ED17 70W Coated Medium Base ED17 100W Coated Medium Base ED17 150W Coated Medium Base 85W Induction Lamp LAMP & ELECTRICAL DATA LAMP TYPE INDUCTION LAMP LAMP/ANSI BALLAST LINE LINE MAXWATTSCODETYPEVOLTS WATTS AMPS NS1 NS2 NS3 NS4 METAL HALIDE Lamp Notice:All NeoSphere optical systems are designed for Coated Lamps. The use of clear lamps will cause shadows from the support arms. For lamp/ballast information outside of the U.S.A. and Canada, please consult your local Kim representative. Warning: All fixtures must be grounded in accordance with local codes or the National Electrical Code. Failure to do so may result in serious personal injury. NS1 NS2 NS3 HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 325 KKIIMM LIGHTING 29 Applications Assistance Kim Lighting utilizes the latest computer technology and software to provide specifiers with reliable evaluations of lighting system performance. Kim can analyze a proposed luminaire layout or provide recommendations based on performance criteria. Hard copies of plans can be sent directly to the Kim Applications Department via fax, express or regular mail. Any .dwg or .dxf file can be transmitted via modem or email (kimapps@kimlighting.com), or placed on diskette, CD ROM or Zip disk, and forwarded to Kim Lighting c/o Kim Apps. Photometric Files Kim photometric files are available free in both electronic and hard copy format. Electronic photometric files include .pdf file format pages for printing and .ies files for use in lighting calculation software. The complete .ies / .pdf library is available on CD ROM and on the internet at www.kimlighting.com. APPLICATION ENGINEERING SERVICES 326 327 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. 328 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: #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 2 329 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 #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 3 330 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. #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 4 331 (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 #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 5 332 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. #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 6 333 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. #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 7 334 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: #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 8 335 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. #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 9 336 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 Memo DRB Staff Report 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 #Z-06209 Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA Staff Report 10337