Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-10 Northeast Urban Renewal Board Minutes Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 5, 2010 The Northeast Urban Renewal Board met in regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 5, 2010, in the Conference Room, Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. Present: Absent: Voting Members: Erik Nelson, Chair Daniel Doehring Tom Noble Robert Pavlic Jeanne Wesley-Wiese Non-Voting Members: Nelle Devitt Lisa Danzl-Scott Staff: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests: Chris Nixon Whit Magro Pat Wolfe Call to Order. Chair Erik Nelson called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Public Comment. Chris Nixon stated that Jon Gerster has had his application for this Board put on hold due to a change in his business opportunities. Chris then indicated that meetings anyway. Consent. Minutes December 1, 2009. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese expressed concern that the minutes reference a straw poll taken at the NENA meeting. She stressed that it was a scoping meeting, with no vote being taken. After several of the other Board members indicated they view a straw poll as being the same as scoping, she indicated her concern has been adequately addressed. NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 1 It was moved by Tom Noble, seconded by Bob Pavlic, that the minutes of the meeting of December 1, 2009, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Discussion Items Depot Park Climbing boulder specifics: discussion with Whit Magro of Strong Hold Fabrication. Planner Keri Thorpe announced that she, Project Engineer Dustin Johnson, Dave Crawford from TD&H, and Chair Erik Nelson have been working on finalizing the bid document. One component of the bid specifications is the boulder, and input from this Board is needed so that they can be properly written. She also noted that a strong recommendation from this Board to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board is important. She indicated that Whit Magro and Pat Wolfe are present to provide professional input and guidance in this discussion. Whit Magro stated that Strong Hold Fabrication, one of only a handful of companies in the United States to custom manufacture climbing boulders, has streamlined its process significantly since manufacturing their first climbing boulder. He showed pictures of the boulders they have manufactured for Langohr Park and the one under construction for the East Gallatin Recreation Area. He encouraged the Board members to find a rock after which they would like to have a boulder patterned, stressed that its dimensions should be proportionate to the size of the park in which it is located, and recognized that it must be within budget. Whit Magro stated that once the design of the boulder has been determined, they work with an architect to create a boulder of the desired size and shape. He suggested that the boulder be designed after a sandstone rock or a granite rock, both of which are common in the area. Responding to Erik Nelson, Whit Magro estimated a boulder the size of the one in Langohr Park would be $16,000 to $20.000. Responding to Chris Nixon, Whit Magro stated an overhang on the rock provides a more difficult level of rock climbing. He noted it is important to provide different levels of difficulty on the boulder, ranging from easy to difficult; and that can be accomplished by the number of holds provided. He noted that difficulty is rated by V levels ranging from 0 to 16; and climbers can choose to make those levels easier or harder by becoming creative. Responding to Bob Pavlic, Pat Wolfe stated they use rebar, plate steel, lath and a strong type of chicken wire to create the configuration of the rock. Ferro concrete is then put on the outside, and handholds are bolted on, leaving the inside hollow. He noted these handholds can be actual real stone with concrete around them if the Board so chooses. He indicated the climbing boulder can be built on site, or its shell can be built at their site on th North 19 Avenue and then moved to the park and completed on site. He indicated that the footer and foundation are included in their price. NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 2 Erik Nelson suggested that the Board could define the shape, size, stone characteristics, V ratings, handholds, construction method and installation methods in the specifications. Responding to Erik Nelson, Pat Wolfe stated the boulder is buried one foot into the ground, and tied to a 24-inch footing or possibly a monoslab. Whit Magro noted that, once the concrete shell cures, the interior frame could be removed and the eggshell exterior would remain viable. Responding to Tom Noble, Whit Magro reiterated his recommendation that the Board find a rock that they feel would be a good shape and design for a climbing boulder. He noted that a boulder patterned after a limestone rock would be more edgy while one patterned after a granite rock would have more cracks. Bob Pavlic suggested that tunnels be provided to allow kids to crawl under the stone. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planner Keri Thorpe suggested that the specifications require the bidder to provide a rendering of the boulder being bid. Whit Magro reviewed the typical process for creating a boulder, noting that it begins with the client picking out a stone, and the architect drawing the boulder on the computer and then superimposing it on the site. He stated this process costs around $1,000 and gives them a photo and a plan for the boulder; and those costs are included in the total price of the boulder. Responding to Planner Thorpe, Whit Magro stated the fall area is not included in their bid. He noted that when the climbing boulder was installed in the City park, the Park Department provided the wood chips and created the fall area. Responding to Whit Magro, Chair Nelson stated the climbing boulder is to be installed by August 1, but can have the month of August to cure if necessary. Planner Keri Thorpe noted it would be good to have the boulder built on site because monthly pictures are required for use of the stimulus monies. Whit Magro encouraged the Board to consider incorporating natural stone into the boulder, making it look more natural and a part of the site. Chair Nelson asked Whit Magro to provide a list of bullet points by the end of next week so that the bid specifications for this portion of the project can be finalized. Planner Keri Thorpe noted that the Board should ask for demonstrated work experience and pictures of actual work completed. NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 3 Responding to Tom Noble, Whit Magro stated that their company is one of four or five in the United States that constructs custom climbing boulders; and they are the only local company. Chair Nelson thanked Mr. Magro and Mr. Wolfe for attending this meeting and providing their input. Organize Work Plan Process; consider grant opportunities. Chair Erik Nelson stated he feels that the Board may not be engaging enough of the neighborhood and suggested that, at a minimum, the Board consider getting input from the surrounding neighborhood about the work plan. He noted that, if the Board begins the process of developing the 2011 work plan early enough, it may also be able to take advantage of grant opportunities, turning each dollar into three. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese cautioned that grants take a lot of work, and it is important to remember that they require a match. She noted that when the neighborhood obtained the grant for the depot trail, they were able to use their in-kind contributions to meet much of the 20-percent match required. Chair Nelson noted that once a grant application is prepared, seeking grants can become a cut and paste situation. Also, the Board does have monies available to meet the match requirement. Chair Nelson suggested that the Board consider connecting to the next NENA meeting, and possibly guide the discussion by itemizing its goals and asking for additional suggestions and input on prioritizing those goals. Chris Nixon noted the date for the next NENA meeting has not yet been set. He stated that spring and fall meetings are required, and they can call a special meeting if necessary. He indicated the spring meeting is typically held in March but may slide into April. discussed informally and a process for doing so. He noted it is important to let the bullet points of projects and the costs associated with them. He then asked if anyone is willing to search for available grants. Nelle Devitt noted that she did a lot of grant research in her previous job, and found that it takes a lot of work. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese noted the bridge could be a good candidate for a recreation and trails grant. NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 4 Daniel Doehring suggested the fence along the tracks could be another project for grant funding. District Vision Document. Chair Nelson stated he has a CD of the visioning document and asked about the best method for distributing it to the other Board members. After discussion, it was determined the best alternative is to have Planning staff get the document printed so that everyone can go through and mark it up as desired. The Board can then make any changes it wishes prior to finally adopting it. Planner Keri Thorpe stated she will contact Board members and let them know when she has the copies ready for distribution. Chair Nelson voiced his appreciation for the enthusiasm shown by the students and the ideas that they generated; however, he no draft visioning document into a document that can be used into the future. Aspen Street right-of-way bridge. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she has had thirty scoping sheets filled out. Three of the responders are against the bridge while the remainder were for it. She noted that she also talked to Cheryl and Smokey Ott, who support the bridge idea. Also, the woman who lives across the stream would like to become involved in the process and help make it become a reality. Chair Nelson stated he does not have a problem with the bridge; it just needs to fit in with the other priorities in the work plan. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese responded that the bridge will improve walkability in the neighborhood; and she has found some people prefer it to sidewalks. She then noted the Board should guide development, not create an atmosphere for development. Nelle Devitt expressed concern about the bridge dumping pedestrians out onto North Rouse Avenue at a place where it is extremely difficult to cross the street. Responding to Planner Thorpe, Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated Cheryl Ott will not support widening of and improvements to the trail, but will support signage. Planner Thorpe cautioned that the trail widening and improvements and the bridge go hand in hand; and it is important to remember that the bridge will increase pedestrian traffic in the area. installation of the bridge could be the result of a prior personality conflict and the manner in which the project was previously broached. He suggested that those objections may now be null and void. NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 5 Chair Nelson stated his concerns revolve around the possibility of green space and a bridge eating up all of the monies available. He feels that a good portion of the monies should be put toward improving the infrastructure that has contributed to the blight conditions. He then stressed the importance of methodically determining what projects are to be funded under the work plan each year. He also noted that the projects identified in the work plan have been separated into infrastructure projects and green space projects; and the monies available each year should be used to fund projects in each of those categories. Tom Noble suggested that the Board could set 20 or 30 percent of the monies aside for additional time could then be used to pursue possible grant opportunities to help fund those items. Bob Pavlic suggested that the Board look for a free bridge, noting that railroads throw away bridges on a regular basis. Chair Erik Nelson stated he sees merit in seeking input from the NorthEast Neighborhood Association; however, he reminded everyone that this Board was charged with specific directives and must follow the document that created it. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planner Keri Thorpe stated the City Engineer will not look at the floodplain issues until he receives a proposal. She cautioned that floodplain management is a big issue, and he can require more for this bridge than has been required for the bridges that have been installed downstream. She then indicated the next steps will include getting a trail pas Jeanne Wesley-Wiese volunteered to talk to Randy Wahl to see if he is willing to look at the bridge from an engineering standpoint so that more accurate cost figures can be generated. She will also meet with the neighbor on the other side of the stream to determine her level of interest and involvement. Community Garden update and review process. Planner Keri Thorpe stated she has talked to Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell about putting a community garden in the Aspen Street right-of-way. To do so will require an encroachment permit from the City; and many issues must be addressed and questions answered prior to undertaking that process. As a result, staff has decided the best alternative is to put this item through the sketch plan review process so that other City staff members can review it and provide their input. Questions to be answered include how the garden will be administered, what the fees will be, and how the costs will be funded. Other outstanding issues to be addressed include who will handle reservations, complaints, collection of fees, the signage to be installed, parking for the garden, and rules. She has volunteered to put the sketch plan together, noting another planner will carry it through the process. She noted that staff will require letters from adjacent property owners showing support for the garden. NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 6 Planner Thorpe stated that, if the Board wishes, she will talk to the staff member at the City of Missoula to get feedback from him on doing garden plots. She will also look at how the Langohr Park community gardens have been operated. She then indicated that if the encroachment permit is approved yet this spring, it could dovetail with the well installation at Depot Park. Action Items Formally recommend climbing boulder specifics for Depot Park RFP document. It was moved by Bob Pavlic, seconded by Tom Noble, that the specifications for the climbing boulder be written to provide a custom boulder similar to the smaller boulder that has been constructed in the City parks by Strong Hold Fabrication, with the various elements that were identified in discussion under the previous agenda item. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Direct staff to prepare Community Garden sketch plan application. Planner Keri Thorpe cautioned that there is a fee for sketch plan review. It was moved by Bob Pavlic, seconded by Tom Noble, that staff be directed to prepare a sketch plan application for the community gardens. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Announcements Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated that MRL has sent an application for lease of the property adjacent to the depot, and she has turned that document over to Planner Thorpe because the City is a party to the lease rather than this Board. Planner Thorpe stated she will have Engineering Assistant Andy Kerr review the lease because he has worked on other documents with MRL. After his review, the lease will be submitted to the Commission for its approval and authorization to sign. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she talked to the man in charge of properties in this district, and he has verbally indicated a fence is needed adjacent to the depot trail. Chair Erik Nelson expressed his interest in having the fence erected along the entire frontage of the railroad tracks rather than giving the railroad an opportunity to make additional requirements in the future. Responding to Planner Thorpe, Chair Nelson suggested that grants to be pursued could include a park improvements grant from the City, a watershed grant for the rain garden along Peach Street, and sidewalks in conjunction with the safe routes to school program. He also suggested that CTEP monies could possibly be used for exterior depot NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 7 improvements and depot grounds improvements since historic transportation improvements are one of the categories in which those monies may be used. Adjournment 8:40 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, Chair Erik Nelson adjourned the meeting. Erik Nelson, Chair Northeast Urban Renewal Board City of Bozeman NURB Meeting January 5, 2010 8