Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-11 Northeast Urban Renewal Board Minutes Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 1, 2011 The Northeast Urban Renewal Board met in regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 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: Commissioner Liaison: Carson Taylor Staff: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests: Tom McNab, MSU Community Development Center Kevin Ceci, MSU student, CDC Kali Jirasko, MSU student, CDC 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 October 4, 2011 meeting. It was moved by Tom Noble, seconded by Dan Doehring, that the minutes of the meeting of October 4, 2011, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 1 Discussion Items — Final Peach Street Design — review process. Planner Keri Thorpe stated that discussions with other staff members revealed the Peach Street design should be adopted by resolution, so she has drafted a resolution that must now be reviewed by senior Planning staff and the City Attorney's office prior to being placed on the Commission agenda. Planner Thorpe stated that, since the action requested is adopting an alternative plan to the collector street plan identified in the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, it was determined this design should first be submitted to the Transportation Coordinating Committee for its review and consideration. That Committee meets quarterly, so she submitted it at their meeting last month. Also, the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee has not had an opportunity to review the plan and provide its input, so she will submit it to them at their meeting to be held this month. She concluded by stating that, with these additional reviews, she anticipates the design will be submitted to the Commission for its approval in December or January. Planner Thorpe asked if the Board wishes to provide an opportunity for public comment on the plan prior to submitting it to the Commission, noting that a letter of concern was read at the last NorthEast Neighborhood Association (NENA) meeting. The individual was concerned not only about the design but about the lack of notification. Bob Pavlic stated he has heard from several people who are unhappy about the loss of parking on the north side of the street. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese noted she was upset by the letter that was read at the NENA meeting, particularly since the neighborhood was notified about the meeting through the NENA newsletter, and adjoining property owners received letters. Planner Keri Thorpe noted that improvements to East Peach Street have been a part of the work plan and budget for the past three years. Chair Erik Nelson stated this Board will probably never have the monies to undertake the improvements, but having this design adopted will provide a basis for requiring street improvements in conjunction with individual development applications. He characterized this design as an alternative to the standards typically imposed. He then noted that this Board carefully weighed the parking issues when making its decision. Tom Noble noted the biggest concern is that property owners and tenants within the district don't want to see anything changed; and they are concerned that adoption of this plan will result in those changes being made within the next couple of years. NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 2 Responding to Planner Thorpe, members of the Board indicated they are not interested in providing an additional public comment period. They agreed, however, that when this issue is scheduled before the Commission, notice should be sent to not only the adjoining property owners but to the various groups in the district and those who have complained. Planner Keri Thorpe stated that Kevin Jacobsen has encountered some grading issues during preparation of the final design; and he anticipates that the design will be completed within the next few weeks. Neighborhood Plan (aka Visioning Document) — Discuss revisions with CDC students and provide direction. Kevin Ceci, MSU student, stated he sent an e- mail with the proposed layout for the plan to Chair Nelson; Chair Nelson noted that he forwarded the e-mail to the Board members. Kevin Ceci characterized the layout as simplified, with a lighter brown bar and white lettering at the top of the page and an indicator of the chapter on the right side. He also noted that six templates were included in the layout. Chair Nelson voiced his approval of the proposed layout. Kevin Ceci stated he and Kali have walked around town and taken pictures to include in the layout. They also added categories to the district character. Kali Jirasko, MSU student, noted that they found some lighting that they photographed but could find no street lights depicting the desired standards. She then noted that they also photographed some items not previously identified, including unique materials and creative fences. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese noted there are a wide variety of houses in the district, not just those with an industrial look. Chair Erik Nelson cautioned that the Board has determined it wishes to include only the public rights-of-way in the plan, which would exclude building materials and fences on private property. He noted the Board is interested in encouraging the integration of sculptures into the landscaping design through bonus points. He then stated the Board must decide if it wishes to identify a unique crosswalk design for the district or stick with standard crosswalks; and those same decisions must be made about lighting and street furniture. He concluded by stating that, in light of those remaining decisions, it would be best to simply create a template for those pages and allow the Board to make its decisions and then fill in the information and pictures or images they feel is needed. NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 3 Responding to Kali, Chair Nelson noted the students can take pictures of those things that exist within the neighborhood, on both public and private property, and include them in the plan, recognizing that the Board can then delete and add pictures as desired. Kali Jirasko reported that they talked to NorthWestern Energy and found they plan to eliminate the substation at some time in the future. They do not plan any infrastructure improvements until additional industrial uses trigger the need for those improvements. She noted that they have had little success in contacting those engineers within the company who might have additional information on existing and pending infrastructure improvements, particularly for the large transmission line. They did find that if there is a fiber optic cable near the railroad, it is not owned by NorthWestern Energy. Kevin Ceci turned attention to the information that they have received from GIS Manager Jon Henderson. He noted they include water and sewer maps, floodplain map, trails map and fire hydrant locations. He stated that the stormwater information is only available in hard copies so, if that map is desired, they will need to go to the City's Engineering Office and manually prepare the map. He also noted that Jon Henderson is not aware of any paving survey. Responding to questions from Kevin, Chair Nelson stated the trails map should show only those trails that currently exist, noting that the East Aspen Street trail is not shown. He also suggested that a map of the larger area should be included to show how both the streets and the trails extend beyond the boundaries of this district. He proposed that this could be done by showing first the entire city, then a smaller quadrant that shows the district's relationship to Main Street, and then a map of the district only. Responding to Kali Jirasko, Chair Nelson stated the zoning map is simply a place holder at this time. Kevin Ceci proposed that the first page of each chapter be a mini index listing what pages are included in the chapter. He noted that they have identified five chapters: preface, overview, district character, project identification and appendix. Planner Keri Thorpe suggested that unique pictures be used for each chapter, so one can easily identify what the section is about. Responding to Kevin Ceci, Chair Nelson asked that the students create a chapter in which the Board can insert its work plan. He also asked that the students include a brief summary of the four previous work plans in this section, noting that it can serve as a running chronology of the district and the Board's decisions on projects. He noted that NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 4 this would provide a history of the district and how the work plans progressed over the years, in a very condensed format. He stated that if anyone wants additional information on a work plan or project, the original documentation is available. Kali suggested that if the Board has information on the boulder and the East Aspen Street trail, they can include that in the document as well. Planner Thorpe stated she can electronically forward the work plans to the CDC students, but cautioned the information in them is quite generalized. She noted that the climbing rock and the trail were subject to project review, and those documents include a more detailed description of the projects. Chair Nelson stated he feels a list of the projects and the funding is all that is necessary in this document. He suggested that the list could potentially trigger a proposal for a public/private partnership. Kali Jirasko noted that they are done with their semester the second week of December, so their final presentation will be at this Board's next meeting. She then asked if the Board members want to receive copies of the plan for further review and input prior to the meeting or if the plan is to be submitted at the next meeting. As a result of discussion, Chair Nelson asked that the students provide a deliverable with JPEGs and the document on CD. Also, several hard copies of the document will be needed since many of the Board members are unable to receive a large document on their computers. Kevin Ceci asked if anyone is savvy in the InDesign software or if a detailed set of instructions is needed. Planner Thorpe stated she proficient in InDesign software but is unsure if anyone else in the City is. Chair Nelson thanked the students for their presentation, noting he is pleased with the document they are developing. Brewery Wall Status & Neighborhood News. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese noted a Facebook page for saving the wall has been set up; and there seems to be a growing public interest in this issue. She noted the developer has done absolutely nothing to date; and it is her impression he is simply waiting for time to run out so he can do what he wants with the wall and the property. She stated he responds to no one and fails to return telephone calls. She concluded by noting that Rich Noonan has offered to use his organization for any fundraising from the neighborhood, but cautioned that if not adequate monies are raised for this purpose, the monies would not be returned to the NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 5 donors but would be used for other projects. In light of the increased interest in this issue, Jeanne noted she has offered to host a meeting at her house on Thursday evening. She concluded by noting that the owner of Classic, Inc., has offered any graphics, flyers and social media needed in conjunction with this effort to save the wall. Commissioner Liaison Carson Taylor noted it is his recollection that the developer was given one year, but must then come back and seek permission once again to demolish the wall. He stated that, in the meantime, the developer was to make efforts to establish whether the wall can be saved or not. He noted the City could determine the wall is unsafe and then order the developer to stabilize it. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she also talked to an attorney, who indicated the developer has a moral obligation because approval of the project was based on saving the wall. His position was that the conditions of approval should be enforced, and suggested that getting the State Historic Preservation Office involved might be helpful. Tom Noble noted this was to have been a $10 million project and it would cost only $60,000 more to stabilize the wall than to demolish it, which is less than 1 percent of the overall cost. He characterized it as a contractual obligation and stated that due diligence must be done. Carson Taylor cautioned that a moral obligation is not a legal obligation. He noted that if the developer can show he has been following the demolition ordinances, then there is a possibility the City will allow him to demolish the wall. He stated the key issue now is how to enforce the requirement, particularly since no bond was required in conjunction with the original approval. Tom Noble stated it is his continuing position that the developer intended to tear down the wall all along and is simply waiting for the opportunity to do so. He voiced concern that people have short memories, and in a few years they will be supportive of removing the wall because it has become an eyesore. He noted, however, it should not fall on the neighborhood to save the wall. Bob Pavlic asked how much it would cost to sue the developer, suggesting that might be a viable alternative to get results. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese noted that she and her neighbors as well as those properties adjacent to the brewery site would be negatively impacted by removal of the wall and this site from the National Register of Historic Places because it would lower their property values; and that would be a basis on which they could sue the developers but she does not wish to pursue that option. Chair Nelson noted that the brewery wall, as it stands, is a blight to the area and NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 6 suggested that the plan could be amended to include it. He noted that monies could then be used for public infrastructure improvements adjacent to the property to offset the costs of stabilizing the wall. Planner Thorpe noted that the original plan included planning and studies for historic structures on private property, such as this wall and the depot, but no monies for actual work. She noted that undertaking actual work would require amending the underlying district plan. Commissioner Liaison Taylor encouraged this Board and the NorthEast Neighborhood Association to document all attempts to contact the developers so that when this item comes before the Commission again, that information can be presented. He also encouraged this Board to review the minutes from the previous action to be sure of the motion made. He then noted that the City cannot require the developer to build what they had said they would, so the question to be answered is what the damages are from not doing so. Tom Noble noted that, while the developer indicates he can't afford to do the wall stabilization or the project, he has not filed for bankruptcy. It is his impression that the developer wants to construct another building on the site, but must let this initial approval run its course before proceeding with that effort. Chair Nelson noted this Board has some funding mechanisms available. He suggested that this item be placed on the December agenda for discussion, cautioning that any decision to use monies to assist with stabilizing the wall must be properly linked to the TIF district and its mission. He also asked that Commissioner Liaison Taylor talk with City officials to determine what the Commission can do and report back at the December meeting. Trail signage. Planner Keri Thorpe asked what signage the Board wishes to include on totems at each end of the Aspen Street trail. She noted that the top sign on the totem identifies the trail as part of the Main Street to the Mountains system while the bottom sign includes logos and who contributed to the trail improvements; however, the middle sign is blank at this time. She noted that sign can be left out if the Board so chooses, noting that it generally directs individuals to a close connector trail or amenity. She stated that the totem on the west end of the trail can identify depot park as a destination, but asked what could be included on the totem at the east end of the trail. Following discussion, it was determined the sign on the east end of the trail should direct people toward the Story Mill Spur Trail. Barricade at end of Church Avenue Trail. Planner Keri Thorpe noted that NURB Meeting—November 1, 2011 7 Bob Pavlic had complained about the barricade at the end of the trail; however, that is the standard barricade now required and is designed so City crews can service the sewer lines in the right-of-way. She noted that a similar barricade is to be erected at the end of the trail when it reaches East Tamarack Street; and that may serve to slow bicyclists as they exit onto the street. Action Items — No action items were identified. Adjournment — 8:18 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—November 1, 2011 8