Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-11 Northeast Urban Renewal Board Minutes Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 4, 2011 The Northeast Urban Renewal Board met in regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 4, 2011, in the Conference Room, Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. PresentAbsent: : Voting Members: Erik Nelson, Chair Daniel Doehring Tom Noble Robert Pavlic Jeanne Wesley-Wiese (arrived at 6:40 p.m.) Non-Voting Members: Nelle Devitt Lisa Danzl-Scott Commissioner Liaison: Carson Taylor Staff: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Dustin Johnson, Project Engineer Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests: Jeremy Olson, Gaston Engineering Sam DesJardins, Gaston Engineering Kevin Jacobsen, Morrison-Maierle Engineering Trevor McSpadden, Morrison-Maierle Engineering Velma McMeekin Chris Nixon Call to Order. Chair Erik Nelson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Public Comment. No comment was received under this agenda item. Consent Approve minutes from November 3, 2010 meeting. It was moved by Tom Noble, seconded by Dan Doehring, that the minutes of the meeting of December 7, 2010, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 4-0 vote. NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 1 Discussion Items – Update on Aspen Street Pedestrian Bridge: Presentation from Gaston Engineering. Jeremy Olson, Gaston Engineering, noted he has four copies of the draft feasibility study available for Board member review. He stated that under this feasibility study, the firm looked at several different bridge manufacturing companies, obtaining pictures of the prefabricated bridges available from each and the costs for each of those bridges. They also confirmed that it appears the site is outside the floodplain as identified by FEMA; and they met with City Engineer Rick Hixson and found it appears no permitting process will be required as long as the bridge is located outside the floodplain. He indicated that this information is intended to give this Board a basis upon which to better make future decisions. Responding to Chair Nelson, Jeremy Olson stated the $42,000 estimate is only for purchase of the bridge and the abutment, and does not include engineering or installation. He noted the estimated cost of installation is $20,000 to $30,000 and engineering is estimated at $10,000 to $20,000, bringing the total projected cost to $75,000 to $90,000. He then noted that this feasibility study has refined the budget and schedule initially provided. Tom Noble noted that in the past, the Board had discussed the possibility of using a railroad flatcar as the bridge and asked what the costs of doing so might be. Jeremy Olson responded this is the first time he has heard of that possibility but would be willing to look at the option. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated that she has also looked at the possibility of using a railroad flatcar to cross a creek and found the cost was $10,000. Project Engineer Dustin Johnson cautioned that tax increment financing monies can only be used for items that have been engineered and approved by the Building Inspection Department, and using a railroad flatcar would result in costs similar to those incurred for using a prefabricated bridge. Responding to questions from Chair Nelson, Jeremy Olson stated there is potentially a sewer main in the way. He noted that through the design process, more surveying will be done; and he is certain there would be a suitable place to install the bridge within the existing 60-foot right-of- way that will not conflict with that line. He also noted that it should be possible to tweak the alignment of the bridge to minimize damage to existing trees and vegetation. He proposed that they could set some stakes and let the Board members look at the alignment prior to any construction being undertaken. Further responding to Chair Nelson, Jeremy Olson stated that in looking at the three bridge companies, Roscoe stood out as the cheapest and had the most items included in the base cost. Planner Thorpe asked if the wooden planks can be easily replaced and asked about their anticipated longevity. NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 2 Jeremy Olson responded that they are anticipated to last 20 to 25 years, depending on use. He estimated that the entire deck could be replaced for $1,500 in materials plus labor. He indicated that all of the bridges included a wood deck, with one of them being made of iron wood and the others being Douglas fir. Chair Nelson stated that, in light of the costs of this project, he anticipates it will remain on the list until the Board can determine how to fund it. Planner Thorpe asked if the Board has adequate information to approach representatives of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust about getting donations to fund a portion of the costs. Chair Nelson suggested that if the costs are itemized, it may be possible to get a portion of them donated. Responding to Jeremy Olson, Chair Nelson observed that the Board is “suffering from sticker shock,” and he is not sure that they will be ready to undertake the bridge project this summer. He asked, however, that the final report include the costs based on 2011 prices. Update on Trail construction projects: North Church Avenue and East Aspen Street. Chair Erik Nelson reported that at last night’s meeting, the Commission voted 4 to 1 in favor of proceeding with the trails as designed. He observed that the Commissioners did express concern about the lack of open discussion with the neighbors in anticipation of their meeting. Planner Thorpe stated staff discussed the issue and found no mailed notice was required under the level of review for this project. She suggested that, from a public relations standpoint, staff could send letters on Board letterhead if desired. She noted that this type of information should come from the Board directly rather than through the NorthEast Neighborhood Association (NENA) network. Chair Nelson noted that he has offered residents in the area the opportunity to be included in the pre-bid phase as well as any pre-construction meetings held. Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Erik Nelson stated the trail is to be located on the east side of the right-of-way, keeping it as far from the Ott property as possible. He then confirmed that the trail will be a 6-foot-wide fines trail. Tom Noble stressed that the 6-foot-wide trail standard is not arbitrary, but is based on years of experience. Chair Nelson noted the next step is to schedule the construction process. He suggested that, in an effort to keep costs down, it may be beneficial to get the Gallatin Valley Land Trust involved in the process. NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 3 Planner Thorpe reminded the Board that a small section of sidewalk is included in this project and suggested that it be incorporated into the work plan. Chair Nelson requested that a work plan for this project be included on the agenda for next month’s meeting. Responding to questions from Velma McMeekin, Planner Thorpe stated that trails are allowed within the watercourse setback under the zone code. She then noted one of the conditions for approval of this application is that all furniture, including benches and picnic tables, be set back a minimum of 45 feet because those facilities can generate activities that damage the vegetative cover. Action Item – Results from Selection Committee evaluations of Proposals from engineering firms for Peach Street improvements . Project Engineer Dustin Johnson stated four proposals were received. The Selection Committee members reviewed and evaluated those proposals and submitted their sheets to him. He found that those ratings were pretty close, and Morrison- Maierle was the top ranked firm. He stressed that if the negotiation process with this firm does not provide the desired results, then negotiations can be undertaken with the next firm. It was moved by Bob Pavlic, seconded by Dan Doehring, that the Board select Morrison-Maierle to provide engineering services for the East Peach Street improvements between North Rouse Avenue and North Plum Avenue. The motion carried on a 4-0 vote with Jeanne Wesley-Wiese abstaining. Project Engineer Dustin Johnson stated he will work with the consulting engineer to prepare a draft contract for consideration at the next Board meeting. Discussion Items (continued) – District Neighborhood Plan (aka Visioning Document). Chair Erik Nelson asked the Board members to identify those items from the draft plan that they feel should be incorporated into the revised document, noting that this discussion will provide direction to the MSU Community Design Center students who will be working on those revisions. Chair Nelson stated a table of contents is essential, as well as an introduction. He then suggested that the purpose of the document should be prepared by this Board rather than the students, and could also give them some additional guidance in preparing the document. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she feels that the first portion of the draft document, to the site analysis, can be eliminated. She then noted that the portion where they identified the connections and gateways should be retained as well as the section on Bozeman Creek. She NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 4 also eliminated the bridge section. While she feels the preservation of the depot is very important, she does not find the information contained in the draft plan particularly valuable. Chair Nelson suggested that the site analysis could possibly be used as a table of contents. He noted that a map of the overall district as well as an aerial photo could be incorporated, with the district being divided into areas and the projects being listed under those various areas. Chair Nelson noted that everyone agrees on the importance of the depot. He then suggested that if the grant application is approved, it may be possible to find out how to cut through the railroad’s red tape and get approval for construction of a fence and some park or trail improvements on the site. He then suggested that this project could fall into the project category in the plan. Planner Thorpe asked if the Board wants the district neighborhood plan to mirror the district plan or if it would be better to note which part of the plan each segment relates to. Chair Nelson suggested that this district neighborhood plan be organized on its own, with reference being made to the district plan; the Board concurred. Chair Nelson noted that, while he agrees much of the bridge section should be eliminated, he feels that some reference to it should remain in the document, particularly since the Board is still interested in moving forward with that project. He also feels connectivity should be a key component of the plan, with broken links being turned into projects to be constructed. Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Thorpe stated she has the inventory of connectivity information prepared by Nelle Devitt and Lisa Danzl-Scott in her office. Chair Nelson stated he envisions the district neighborhood plan as a document that represents projects this Board wishes to encourage, whether it can do them financially or not. He noted that this document could then be used to identify priorities as well as issues and projects and to encourage others to assist in constructing those projects. Tom Noble asked if this document should include a set of requirements for improvements in the public rights-of-way, including street lights, benches and bike racks. Chair Nelson noted he wishes to encourage sculpture, possibly to help meet landscaping points. He also feels the plan should address signage and identify a unique crosswalk within the district as well as desired locations. He then asked if the Board wants to identify a special light fixture for the district, recognizing that it must meet the dark skies requirements of the neighborhood. Planner Thorpe reminded the Board that the locations of crosswalks are identified by the City’s Engineering Department; however, this Board may want to determine the design, in lieu of the typical two white lines. She suggested that the unique crosswalks could be tied to the incentive plan, which would allow tax increment monies to be used to cover the additional costs of an embellished crosswalk. Alternately, this Board could undertake the unique crosswalks as a NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 5 standalone project, helping to create a gateway to the district. Chair Nelson stated he feels the Board should identify the elements it wants and then provide latitude for implementing those elements, noting it is important to encourage creative ideas for development within the district. He stressed that those elements must lie within the public right- of-way. Bob Pavlic asked if it would be possible to get lights installed at the intersections, particularly for the major intersections and where benches are located. Planner Thorpe suggested that bollard lights be considered, particularly since many within the district do not wish to have it become a well lit area. She then cautioned that the installation of street lights will trigger the requirement for creation of a special improvement lighting district to cover the costs of maintenance and energy costs; and those costs will be assessed against those properties within the district boundaries, even if only one light is installed. She noted that TireRama on Main Street wanted to include the downtown decorative light in front of its new facility and, to do so, connected the light to their electric service. Bob Pavlic stated he feels intersection improvements should be identified in the plan, including crosswalks, pedestrian facilities, benches and lights. Chair Nelson stated he does not believe as many pictures are needed as there are in the draft. Rather, he wants just a diagram to show where the improvements are to be located. He noted that if the district has a theme, then the Board should encourage use of that theme. As an alternative, the Board could identify a specific bench and bike rack to be used within the district, but allow an applicant to propose a different option. Planner Thorpe cautioned that a public access easement may be required if a bollard light and bench are to be located outside the existing right-of-way. She then encouraged the Board to not include trash containers, which then trigger maintenance requirements. Responding to Chair Nelson, the Board agreed that they want to pick street corridors on which projects are encouraged. Chair Nelson stated he does not want to trigger the requirement for installation of curbs and gutters in connection with street improvements and, as a result, suggested that the Board establish design standards for the local streets within the district. Chair Nelson asked if the Board is interested in pursuing a change in zoning from M-1 to HMU for those properties within the district not already zoned HMU. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she feels that doing so would result in a zoning that is more honest about what the district really is. Tom Noble stated that issue is left over from when the Board was talking about encouraging different types of businesses in different parts of the district, and prior to its determination that use of the monies would be confined to the public rights-of-way. As a result, he feels that issue NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 6 should be eliminated. In response to comments from Chair Nelson, Planner Thorpe confirmed that the Planning Board is interested in meeting with the various tax increment financing boards to see how they can assist in making the districts more successful, including the possibility of relaxing some of the zoning regulations or implementing a different standard to incentivize development within the district. Chair Nelson identified parking as his major issue, noting that it is difficult to get enough parking to meet zoning requirements within the district, particularly since on-street parking does not count toward meeting those requirements. He also finds the setback for residential development to be onerous. Planner Thorpe cautioned that, while parking relaxations might allow development within the district to become more successful, the result might be conflicts with the residential area. Tom Noble noted the document talks about pedestrian friendly streets, and allowing houses to be closer to the street and sidewalk could help to implement them. Planner Keri Thorpe noted the economic development council has expressed an interest in meeting with the tax increment financing boards, with the intent to identify areas for potential infill. She stated that in Missoula, there are several incentives for bringing buildings up to code to make them more attractive for redevelopment in lieu of opting for Greenfield development. Chair Nelson suggested that, during the students’ revision of this district neighborhood plan, it would be beneficial for this Board to further refine what the document envisions. Bob Pavlic expressed an interest in seeing buried power lines; Chair Nelson cautioned that the lines along North Wallace Avenue are transmission lines and, therefore, cannot be buried without incurring a huge expense. Chair Nelson suggested that, instead of addressing streets, it would be more beneficial to refer to corridors, possibly including diagrams of street sections with the various amenities. Tom Noble voiced general agreement, noting that design of any street improvements will be done by an engineering firm. Chair Nelson expressed interest in low impact design ideas within this district; the Board generally agreed. Responding to Planner Thorpe, the Board members expressed an interest in looking at alternatives to the zone code requirements for landscaping of drainage retention areas. Chair Nelson expressed interest in having a bus stop with shelter within the district, possibly along the west side of North Rouse Avenue. He also stated he feels it is important to have some NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 7 historical data provided, including what the brewery district is, and possibly a list of documents to be referenced in conjunction with this document. He concluded by stating he feels the plan should include a gray scale option and he wants it in an editable format. Chair Nelson concluded the discussion by stating the next step is to prepare a list of revisions to be made to the document, based on the minutes from this meeting. Board member recruitment. Planner Keri Thorpe reminded the Board that three non- voting member positions remain open and stressed the benefit of having the additional input that can be provided by those individuals. Adjournment – 8:50 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting. Erik Nelson, Chair Northeast Urban Renewal Board City of Bozeman NURB Meeting – January 4, 2011 8