Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-11 Northeast Urban Renewal Board Minutes Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 6, 2011 The Northeast Urban Renewal Board met in regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, in the Conference Room, Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. Present: Absent: Voting Members: Erik Nelson, Chair Daniel Doehring (arrived at 6:40 p.m.) Tom Noble Robert Pavlic Jeanne Wesley-Wiese (arrived at 6:45 p.m.) Non-Voting Members: Commissioner Liaison: Carson Taylor (arrived at 8:10 p.m.) Staff: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Dustin Johnson, Project Engineer Allyson Bristor, Neighborhood Coordinator/Associate Planner Courtney Kramer, Historic Preservation Officer Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests: Tom McNab, MSU Community Development Center Kevin Ceci, MSU student, Community Development Center Kali Jirasko, MSU student, Community Development Center Kevin Jacobsen, Morrison-Mairle Sierra Harris, Greater Gallatin Watershed Council Rose Vallor, Greater Gallatin Watershed Council Jennifer Britton, Greater Gallatin Watershed Council Putter Brown 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. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 1 Consent— Approve minutes from November 1, 2011 meeting. It was moved by Bob Pavlic, seconded by Tom Noble, that the minutes of the meeting of November 1, 2011, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 3-0 vote. Discussion Items — Final Peach Street Design — Status. Kevin Jacobsen distributed copies of the new plan that he had prepared in response to input received from other advisory boards, noting that they include narrower lanes to slow traffic. He cautioned that this will require replacing existing curbs or curving the new curbs to meet the existing curbs. He then suggested that the wider travel lanes are needed to accommodate the wider traffic that uses this roadway. Chair Nelson noted that this Board chose the design with the wider travel lanes and the sharrows because it best accommodates the large trucks that use the roadway as well as the bicycle traffic. He asked that the final design include the 11 1/2-foot-wide driving lanes that had previously been chosen. Kevin Jacobsen noted that Commissioner Liaison Carson Taylor wants narrower driving lanes, which tend to calm traffic; and Gary Vodehnal wants to see wider sidewalks. Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed that the final design should be based on their previous decisions. Responding to Chair Nelson, Kevin Jacobsen stated he has been waiting for this meeting before proceeding with the final design. He anticipates that the final design will be completed and submitted to the City next week and, once it has gone through the approval process, will be shelved until street improvements are triggered. Neighborhood Plan (aka Visioning Document) — Final Presentation by CDC students. Faculty Advisor Tom McNab and students Kevin Ceci and Kali Jirasko from the MSU Community Development Center were present for this final presentation of the neighborhood plan. Kali Jirasko gave the Board a flash drive with the final draft of this document and all of its photos, along with the photoshop version of the initial plan done two years ago. She then showed the Board a hard copy of the final document, noting that most of the pages are finished except for those serving as placeholders. Kevin Ceci gave an overview of what they have done since the last meeting, stating that they incorporated the budget plan into the document, including past and present projects. He noted this is simply a brief overview that includes the total cost of each project and any funding, but additional information about a specific project must be obtained from the original documentation. Also, a yellow bar has been included to show where to go on the website to get more information. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 2 Kevin Ceci stated they also talked to an engineer at NorthWestern Energy and gained some additional information. The area is serviced by a substation on East Tamarack Street and above ground lines along North Wallace Avenue and East Tamarack Street, and power to buildings is via underground lines. They also confirmed that, within the next ten years, the substation will be closed because its technology is out of date and, with power available from elsewhere to serve this area, the substation is no longer needed. The developer of a specific project will be required to talk to an engineer at NorthWestern Energy to ensure adequate power is provided to the site. Kevin reported that they also spoke to Street Superintendent John VanDelinder, and he will be e-mailing information to them on the current condition of all streets in the neighborhood as well as the ten-year plan for those streets. Kali Jirasko identified the placeholder pages, noting they include pages for the mission statement and the introduction. They took the nine goals and actions from the 2005 district plan and incorporated them into the document, which can be edited or deleted as the Board desires. She then noted that the zoning map is included in the plan and a placeholder page has been included for zoning modifications. She turned her attention to the elements of district character, noting that placeholders are included for streets and crosswalks. Also, placeholders have been provided for the pavement survey and the stormwater category. Kevin Ceci reviewed the format of the plan, noting that it is divided into chapters. A table of contents has been added at the beginning of each chapter, and the appendix includes everything that doesn't deal directly with a specific chapter. Kali Jirasko stated that, during a critique of the plan two weeks ago, professors from MSU suggested they include case studies on various elements, such as neighborhood incentives, in the appendix. As a result, they included a case study regarding care of vacant lots and abandoned buildings from Detroit and a case study on the New York City skyline, including a raised railroad in the center of the city and adaptive re-use of old buildings, in this final draft. She concluded by noting that work citations have also been added to this final document. Kevin Ceci stated the flash drive includes the new plan in two versions, including one in InDesign 5, and all of the master templates for the pages in the document. Also, all of the photos are on the disc, and others can be added. He concluded by asking for Board input on whether they have accomplished what was expected as well as any additional input. Chair Nelson stated the new document looks much better than the initial draft. He also noted the process and the presentations to the Board were very effective, and the result is a document the Board can now use. He stated that, hopefully, these students can watch the document evolve. Bob Pavlic voiced his appreciation for the new document, noting that it provides what this Board needs as it moves forward. Dan Doehring voiced his appreciation for the document, noting it exceeds his expectations. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 3 Kevin Ceci and Kali Jirasko noted this is the first class where they have had outside clients and been required to attend meetings and make presentations. Tom McNab stated this plan will be presented to faculty around 11:00 a.m. on December 9 in Cheever Hall and encouraged all interested Board members to attend. Greater Gallatin Watershed Council Low Impact Design for Stormwater Mitigation — slide presentation (GGWC representatives). Sierra Harris, Watershed Coordinator, introduced Rose Vallor and Jennifer Britton, noting that they are on the stormwater work crew, She stated the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council is a non-profit organization formed in 2004 to work on stormwater management. She is the only paid person; and the organization is run by a 13-member board that represents a wide spectrum of entities and works collaboratively with similar entities in Big Sky and Madison County. Their initial funding was through TMDL under the State Department of Environmental Quality. This group is now making presentations to various groups throughout the community to inform them about the work that the Council has undertaken to date and to determine what partnerships might be formed in the future. Sierra Harris stated the Council wanted to look at stormwater management using low impact development guidelines. She noted that they also have their annual meetings around the end of January; and in October they did a fall tour of the City's watershed. They also do stream monitoring on four creeks throughout Bozeman and turn that information over to the Department of Environmental Quality. They have done the rain gardens outside City Hall and at Sacajawea Middle School, and want to work with agricultural groups as well as urban renewal groups on future projects. Rose Vallor noted that the population in this area is projected to increase, and it is imperative that steps be taken to manage the stormwater. She showed examples of damage to urban waterways as well as the impacts from runoff from streets and sidewalks and erosion from high waters. She noted there are many sources of pollution from urban and residential development as well as agricultural uses. She noted the Department of Environmental Quality has mandated that stormwater issues be addressed; and the City has been looking at stormwater events. She suggested that stormwater be viewed as a resource, and noted that a decentralized treatment option might be preferred since it provides for addressing the stormwater where it occurs. She concluded with a list of the founding members of the Board, noting that in 2008 they came up with guidelines for the organization. Jennifer Britton reviewed various components of projects they have identified across the country. She noted that the High Point project in the southern part of Seattle is an example of a developer/local government collaborative effort in a very large low-income development. The project includes on-site infiltration for run-off from impervious surfaces, porous concrete sidewalks, swales, and larger retention and detention areas. She noted that varying rates of NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 4 success have been realized from these components in terms of both quantity and quality of water released. She suggested that elements of this project may work in the East Peach Street improvements, possibly with a bio filter included in the swale and the use of stand pipes. Jennifer Britton then turned her attention to examples from other communities, noting that an 82 to 92 percent improvement in water quality resulted from projects in Portland. Rose Vallor cited some local examples of on-site stormwater management, including the broken curbs in the new Library parking lot, which allows water to flow into the green areas and then slowly seep into the groundwater. The rain garden at City Hall is another example, where a number of plants that can handle both temporary wet situations and dry conditions are planted in a specific ratio of compost and sand. She noted that this rain garden holds the water off the roof of the building, and the plants help to suck up the water rather quickly. Jennifer Britton cautioned it is important to ensure a swale has enough capacity to hold the water it captures and does not flood adjacent structures. She then noted that water collection systems can be used as an alternative, showing examples of rain barrels and cisterns. She turned her attention to filter strips, which are buffer strips between agricultural, urban or residential uses and streams. She noted it is important to protect and possibly improve natural wetland areas, noting that such areas serve to filter water. Sierra Harris stated the organization is currently looking for ten wetlands and ten impaired wetlands and willing landlords to work with in the next phase of their work. Rose Vallor noted that one question raised during their presentations to various organizations is whether on-site management of stormwater really saves money. She showed an example of a project in Whitefish, where the result was reduced runoff into the system and recharging of groundwaters as well as reduced costs for the system. She stressed it is important to view an on-site system as an alternative system, noting that they typically cost no more than connecting to the stormwater system. Jennifer Britton stated that MSU is starting a new pilot project on campus, and the GGWC hopes to develop a guideline book for campuses as a result of that project. She noted that the pilot projects will include testing of pervious concrete surfaces and new designs on campus as well as a close look at Mandeville Creek. Responding to questions from Chair Nelson, Sierra Harris stated the GGWC is working on Bozeman Creek at City Hall, testing for heavy metals, and is looking at improvements to the creek at Bogert Park but has not looked specifically at that section of Bozeman Creek running through this urban renewal district. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 5 Chair Nelson thanked the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council representatives for their presentation, noting that this Board has a limited pool of funds that it could possibly use to leverage improvements to the creek corridor through this district. Brewery Wall Discussion — How will NURB participate in the preservation of the wall? Neighborhood Coordinator/Associate Planner Allyson Bristor distributed an updated timeline for the brewery project. She noted that on January 10, 2011, the Commission held a second hearing on modifications to the final plan to allow demolition of the brewery wall. The Commission identified issues they felt had not been met and, as a result, voted to not allow demolition of the wall. That action stays demolition for two years, during which time the applicant and the City are to look at alternatives. At the end of that two-year period, the applicant must once again come back with a request for demolition, outlining the steps that have been taken to resolve the issues that have been identified. She noted that the City's Building Official is watching the wall from a public safety perspective and, if it appears the wall has become compromised, will look at steps to mitigate the situation. She then noted that, at this time, it appears the front of the wall hasn't changed much, but the west side is decaying a bit more with its exposure to the elements. She stated that, during one of his visits, the Building Official found the fence had collapsed on one side and that someone was getting into the site. The owner's representatives were contacted, and the fence was repaired within a day. Responding Chair Nelson, Neighborhood Coordinator/Associate Planner Bristor stated that if the City does not hear from the applicant in two years, she anticipates the City will attempt to contact him. Historic Preservation Officer Courtney Kramer stressed it is important to recognize the wall has not been approved for demolition. She then questioned whether the City has the ability to force the owner to do anything with the wall at the end of the two-year period. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated a group of people with various expertises is trying to identify a way to not just let the wall rot. A facebook page has been set up, and 104 people have signed up on it. Responding to Bob Pavlic, Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she researched the ownership of this property at the Clerk and Recorder's Office, and it appears the applicant owns the property outright, with no financing on it. Allyson Bristor stated most properties are in some type of mortgage situation. She has heard that, in this instance, the owner spent significant monies to acquire the property and is planning to recapture those monies. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 6 Responding to Chair Nelson, Allyson Bristor confirmed that the City can only address health safety issues during this two-year period. She noted that the City can only give the applicant guidance and require them to address issues like the collapsed fence. Responding to additional questions from Chair Nelson, Allyson Bristor stated the applicant provided only the costs of tearing the wall down, not for stabilizing it. She then noted that the wall could be stabilized by itself or with a building constructed behind it. Chair Nelson noted this Board can only consider the gap between the costs of tearing the wall down and preserving it through stabilization. He suggested that if that information were available, it could provide a starting point from which this Board could work to facilitate the process. Allyson Bristor noted that, given the fact that the demolition estimates are now a year old, it might be good to obtain current estimates for both demolition and stabilization. Historic Preservation Officer Courtney Kramer stated she feels it is appropriate to offer a low- interest loan to cover the costs between demolition and stabilization for a historic building within the district. Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe cautioned that the use of monies in this manner should be included in the district plan, noting a nexus can be created since the result is preserving the character of the district. Chair Nelson noted that this Board can resolve many of the logistical issues, but the real issue is whether the developer wishes to participate. Courtney Kramer cautioned that, if the Board decides to offer a low-interest loan to cover the difference in costs between demolition and stabilization, it should require a conservation agreement that requires the wall to remain, whether it is incorporated into the project or not. Responding to questions from Chair Nelson, Historic Preservation Officer Kramer suggested that the Board ask the developer to do the engineering for a future application now so that the difference in costs between demolition and stabilization can be determined. Commissioner Liaison Taylor questioned what happens if the Chief Building Official determines the wall is no longer safe, cautioning that the applicant may then be allowed to tear it down, or the City may need to tear it down and bill him. Responding to Tom Noble, Courtney Kramer suggested that the initial letter to the property owner should possibly come from the neighbors rather than from the City or any of its boards. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 7 Tom Noble noted that if the residents come up with the monies to preserve the wall, there would be a neighborhood sense of ownership. Courtney Kramer noted that a letter from the Friends of the Wall to neighbors of the brewery site, the City and possibly the Bozeman Daily Chronicle saying they are interested in raising monies to save the brewery wall would be a good first step. Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe noted that public/private partnerships can work well, citing the Wilma Theater project in Billings as an example. Chair Nelson concluded discussion of this issue, noting it provides a natural transition to the next agenda item. City Commission 2012 Work Plan — Is there a recommendation the NURB would like to forward to the City Commission? Historic Preservation Planner Courtney Kramer noted that, if a project is not on the Commission's work plan, City staff cannot work on it until all of the other priorities have been filled. She noted this Board can tell the Commission they feel it is important for staff to work on a demolition by neglect ordinance during the upcoming year to address issues such as the brewery wall and the depot. Neighborhood Coordinator/Associate Planner Bristor stated that the InterNeighborhood Council is going to push for including a demolition by neglect or property maintenance ordinance as a priority for the upcoming year. Chair Nelson expressed an interest in seeing redevelopment of the Idaho Pole site on the priority list. He noted that, while that property is not within this district, its development would benefit the district. He also asked that the Kenyon-Noble site be included on the list. He stated his interest is in encouraging broader infill in the community. Tom Noble suggested that encouraging the State to push the North Rouse Avenue improvements up on its list of priorities and protection of the Bozeman Creek corridor be added to the list of items forwarded to the Commission. Development Review applications for NURD properties currently under review. Planner Keri Thorpe stated that Putter Brown has submitted an application to allow a restaurant on the main floor of the Brown Building, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of East Peach Street and North Wallace Avenue. He is seeking a deviation for a 1785-square-foot restaurant, which exceeds the allowable size under the zone code. No outdoor seating is proposed; no cabaret license is being sought at this time; and the entrance to the restaurant is to be toward the parking lot to mitigate noise concerns. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 8 Planner Thorpe stated this application is scheduled to go before the Development Review Committee tomorrow for its first review. In light of parking, it is anticipated the restaurant will be open from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. only, and staff will recommend a condition that limits the seating area based on the number of parking spaces provided. She noted that the Board of Adjustment will make the decision on the requested deviation. She concluded by stating this Board may choose to comment, or its members may comment as individuals. Putter Brown stated the owner currently seats customers from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. at his Belgrade location. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese noted that when this proposal was reviewed at the NorthEast Neighborhood Association meeting, the neighborhood was generally willing to accept the restaurant with a 9 p.m. closing time. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planner Thorpe confirmed the conditions could be amended in conjunction with a future application for a cabaret license. She then indicated that she can give an update at the January meeting, since this Board meets before the Board of Adjustment does. She can then update this Board on staff findings and recommendations and include any Board input in her staff report. Neighborhood News. Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Keri Thorpe stated the Cottonwood Warehouse is at 725 East Cottonwood Street and is the subject of an informal review process to determine whether a formal application is warranted. Action Items — Having considered feedback from District residents, Transportation Coordinating Committee, and Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee, the NorthEast Urban Renewal Board moves to forward the final East Peach Street design standard to the Bozeman City Commission for their consideration. It was moved by Tom Noble, seconded by Dan Doehring, that, having considered the feedback from residents and other advisory boards, the Board forward the final design for East Peach Street as previously approved, with 11'/2-foot-wide shared driving lanes and 5-foot-wide sidewalks. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Adjournment— 8:55 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting. NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 9 Erik Nelson, Chair Northeast Urban Renewal Board City of Bozeman NURB Meeting—December 6, 2011 10