Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-12 Northeast Urban Renewal Board MinutesNortheast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 7, 2012 The Northeast Urban Renewal Board met in regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 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 (arrived at 6:43 p.m.) Non-Voting Members: Commissioner Liaison: Carson Taylor Staff: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Tim McHarg, Planning director Allyson Bristor, Neighborhood Coordinator/Assistant Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests: Putter Brown, 600 North Wallace Avenue Frank C’de Baca, 524 North Wallace Avenue Chris Nixon, 719 North Wallace Avenue Todd Hoitsma, 702 East Peach Street Randy Wall, 530 East Cottonwood Street 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 Items – Approve minutes from January 3, 2012 meeting. It was moved by Dan Doehring, seconded by Tom Noble, that the minutes of the meeting of January 3, 2012, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 4-0 vote. Discussion Items – Brown Building Restaurant Proposal. Planner Thorpe stated the City Commission has reclaimed decision-making authority on this application; and it is now scheduled before that body on February 27. Chair Nelson gave a brief summary of this Board’s discussion and decision at last month’s meeting, noting that after extensive discussion and a concern that the applicant was not present to provide background information on why the deviation was being requested, the Board voted to support the application for the restaurant without the deviation. Putter Brown stated that Tommaso, owner of Damasco’s, has requested a deviation to the 1500-square-foot limit to provide space for a walk-in freezer and a gelato machine. He showed a diagram of the proposed restaurant space based on both the 1500-square-foot size allowed and the 1800-square-foot size requested, stressing that there are no changes in the seating area and the circulation patterns; rather, all of the additional square footage is located in the preparation area. He stressed that, while the application is simply for a restaurant, he has not had discussions with any other restaurant owner or with any realtor. Rather, he and Tommaso determined that going through the process jointly was overwhelming to both of them, so they have divided the process with him being responsible for the application and creating the shell space and Tommaso being responsible for creating the restaurant once the application the shell space is available. Responding to Tom Noble, Putter Brown stated that take out is not part of the current Damasco’s operation; and he has not had any discussions with the applicant on whether it would be part of this restaurant. Tom Noble voiced his concern that a take-out service can have an impact on traffic volume and patterns. He noted that a lobby area can also generate a need for more parking for those waiting to be seated. Putter Brown noted that one of the main reasons for the vestibule is to identify the restaurant access. He indicated that any take-out orders would be serviced through that vestibule. Responding to Frank C’de Baca, Putter Brown stated the current restaurant hours are 5 to 9 p.m. and the proposal is to retain those hours, with the restaurant being closed on Sundays and Mondays. He then indicated that the yoga studio will be moving on February 15, which will open up several of the parking spaces currently occupied after 5 p.m. He noted that employees are to park off site and, to accommodate those vehicles, he has a handshake agreement with the tenant across the street to use eight of his parking spaces. He noted that he has also been offered parking spaces at the Misco Mill Art Gallery to accommodate parking needs. Frank C’de Baca stated that he has discussed this proposed restaurant with Mr. Perkins, owner of Karst Stage, and he has expressed his concerns about parking and safety at the corner of East Peach Street and North Wallace Avenue. Tom Noble noted that much of the discussion at last month’s meeting revolved around the impacts a night time use will have on the area. He then stated that a review of his files produced a petition signed by 37 residents in 2005 voicing opposition to night time uses in the district. Bob Pavlic expressed his concern that the zone code has changed so that restaurants are now a permitted use and not attached to a food manufacturing business. Chair Nelson stressed the importance of remembering that a 1500-square-foot restaurant is allowed, and that the issue is whether the Board wishes to recommend approval of the requested deviation. Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Thorpe stated there are no restrictions on hours of operation in the zone code, so the only restriction comes with self-imposed hours unless a more intense review process is triggered in the future. Randy Wall suggested that the noise ordinance could possibly be used to address noise issues resulting from this use. He then reviewed the language contained in previous zoning documents, noting it seems the type of restaurant conceived for this area was a coffee shop or deli that is open during the day but is closed in the evenings. Putter Brown stated that when he built the subject building, he met with Frank C’de Baca and found he was concerned about people parking adjacent to his house. In light of that concern, he has informed all of his tenants not to park there and, if he has found any customers parking by Mr. C’de Baca’s home, has asked that they move. He suggested that, to address those concerns, residential parking signs be posted. Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe cautioned that the posting of such signs requires the creation of a residential parking district, which typically involves a larger area and is triggered by significant impacts on parking patterns. Todd Hoitsma noted that, while he would be happy to see the restaurant in this location, he is concerned about traffic. He cited the issues around Audrey’s Pizza, which is just down the block, and noted that this use will impact and change this subject area. He stated those who live along East Peach Street are used to noise; but it is amazing how quiet the area becomes on weekends. Frank C’de Baca stated that, while he is not anti-business, he is concerned this restaurant will change the whole neighborhood as well as the parking. He also voiced concern about the safety issues that can arise from parking along the street resulting from this night time activity. As a result of this discussion, the Board chose to take no further action on this agenda item, but to let the motion adopted at the January 3 meeting stand. Night time uses in the District. At Chair Nelson’s request, Tom Noble provided some background information on why this item was placed on the agenda. He drew attention to various points in the district plan, noting the mission statement references protecting the unique ambiance and historic character of the district. He also referenced some of the guiding principles, which include balancing commerce and livability within the district; honoring the unique character and vitality of the district; and considering the impacts that projects within the district may have on adjacent neighborhoods. He then noted he is not aware of a restaurant ever having been located within this district, and he speculated that people did not anticipate night time uses. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she was taken aback when she realized the zone code had been changed to allow restaurants to operate at night; and she believes that allowing them will make the area less habitable for residents. She noted that at the present time, residents have evening and weekend peace; and she is concerned that night time uses will have a big impact on the district. Chair Nelson noted there are currently night time uses in the district, and it appears that the concern revolves around social night time uses. Responding to Randy Wall, Planning Director Tim McHarg stated restaurants are allowed in the HMU zoning district regardless of what is allowed in the M-1 or M-2 zoning district. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planning Director McHarg cautioned against an amendment that would limit hours of operation for a particular use, noting that enforcing that type of provision is difficult. He recommended that the zoning provisions be kept as clean and simple as possible. He suggested that, if the Board does not want restaurants, the best way to amend the code would be to simply strike that use from the list of permitted uses in the HMU district. He noted that the amendment would go through the Zoning Commission and to the City Commission for action. Planning Director McHarg noted the current size cap is to allow a business that is compatible in a mixed use neighborhood. He stated if the Board does not believe that is effective, then eliminating the category would be the cleanest alternative. He suggested that, if the Board feels there may be some types of restaurants that would be desirable in the district, another alternative would be to subject them to the higher level of review provided by the conditional use process. He noted that this would allow review on a case-by-case basis, with decisions being made by the Board of Adjustment unless the City Commission reclaims decision-making authority. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planning Director McHarg confirmed that hours of operation can be included in the conditions of approval for a conditional use permit. Responding to comments from Randy Wall, the Planning Director noted that one of the underlying premises for the table of uses in the zone code is to keep it simple and compressed into as few categories as possible. As a result, all restaurants are contained in one category and should not be divided into various categories such as coffee shops or delis. Commissioner Liaison Carson Taylor encouraged the Board to summarize what is happening that they don’t want and then determine the tools to maintain the character of the neighborhood. He cautioned that the zone code is a blunt instrument and, in this instance, may be too blunt. He recognized that outlawing restaurants entirely may be more than the neighborhood wants. It appears issues of concern include traffic, parking and noise, and he suggested that addressing those issues may lead to the best solution. Randy Wall noted that between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays, there is noise and traffic in the neighborhood, but after 5 p.m. and on weekends, it is quiet. Because many of the buildings in the district are tall and hard surfaced, noise can travel well. When he has his bedroom window open at night and people are outside the Putter building talking in normal voices, he can clearly hear the conversation. If the restaurant closes its doors at 9 p.m. and serves those who may have just arrived, the last customers will probably leave around 10 p.m. and the employees around 11 p.m.; and he anticipates the noise will increase at both of those times as people talk on the way to their vehicles. Todd Hoitsma noted there is a studio across the street from him with sessions every Tuesday night, and the noise does affect his living quality on those nights that the building is not completely closed. In light of this discussion, Planning Director McHarg asked the Board to allow staff to review this information and bring back some ideas for consideration at the next meeting. Chair Nelson stressed the importance of remembering that the district plan calls for acceptance of the uniqueness of this neighborhood. He recognized the concerns of the residents in the area, but noted that 50 to 60 percent of the land within the district may be occupied by industrial or commercial uses; and those property owners need assurance that their property rights are also being protected. The Board agreed that this item should be placed on next month’s agenda for further discussion. Industrial Land Use designation in Community Plan – is it the best classification for the NURD? Planning Director Tim McHarg noted there are now two other historic mixed use districts, and they have their own land use designation. He noted that the only time the land use designation comes into play is when annexation or a zone change is being sought. He suggested that, if the Board wishes to see the land use designation for this district changed, it be incorporated into the updating of the community plan that is scheduled in two years. Commissioner Liaison Taylor stressed the importance of remembering what the concerns are when discussing the tools that may be available. He noted that amendments to the unified development ordinance go to the appropriate advisory board and the Commission; and they will likely receive input from interested persons who may not live within the district. He stated it is important for this Board to determine how it can best deal with the concerns it has in light of the fact that the Commission has the final decision-making authority. Planning Director McHarg stated it is important to engage all interested parties early in the process. He suggested that staff can mail out notices or notify residents through NENA’s communication channels. Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planning Director McHarg stated that he does not believe delaying a change in the land use designation will result in any potential problems for the district, He characterized the community plan as the overarching document with many regulatory documents under it that provide clarity and provisions to ensure compatibility of uses. Brewery Wall Discussion – Funding proposal. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planner Keri Thorpe confirmed that a letter has been sent to the property owner as well as Graham Goff, the local representative. She noted the letter was designed to incentivize the applicant to complete the project rather than stabilize the blighted wall and, as a result, contained no numbers. She stated that if they agree to proceed with the project, there is no need for an engineering study; however, if they don’t proceed, then stabilizing of the wall will be required. Planning Director McHarg encouraged the Board to give the applicant a couple weeks to respond, noting that if no response is received, staff can follow up with Graham Goff. Chair Nelson noted that, since the letter has been sent and the Board is now awaiting applicant response, no action is required on this item at this time. Amendment to District Plan to include use of TIF funds for historic preservation of contributing structures located both within the NURD and in designated historic districts. Planner Thorpe distributed copies of a memo dated February 7 in which she listed issues as well as three questions to be considered. She noted that the Board can use its tax increment financing funds for historic preservation of contributing structures both within its TIF district and in designated historic districts, such as the Brewery District and the Mill District. She highlighted some of the options, including establishing criteria to be followed when considering applications for TIF monies for historic preservation and then waiting for specific projects to arise, or limiting the use of those monies to specific projects, such as the brewery wall and the depot. She stressed the importance of remembering that this Board has not much money and a lot of projects that it has previously identified. Planner Thorpe noted that, if the City were successful in entering into an agreement with either Burlington Northern or Montana Rail Link, this Board could offer to put a new roof on the depot to preserve the building for potential future use; or it could possibly fund construction of a fence along the railroad track in conjunction with redevelopment of the site. She noted the Board could also expend TIF monies for a portion of the public infrastructure costs in conjunction with redevelopment of the brewery property. Responding to Chair Nelson, the Planner confirmed that the Commission has the final say on how the monies are expended. They approve a fund amount for the redevelopment incentive program created by the Board and then the Board may approved individual grant awards under that program. She stressed that, if the monies are to be used to pay for infrastructure improvements, it should be established as a payback program once the work has been completed, with verification of the costs being provided. She also noted that the expenditure of these monies needs to be tied to the district plan and the mitigation of blight. Responding to Chair Nelson, Planner Thorpe suggested that some general guidelines be established, noting that accountability and transparency are important. Planner Thorpe gave some examples of how the North 7th Avenue urban renewal district has expended some of its monies. In light of those examples, Chair Nelson noted the guidelines should include a limit of 15 percent of the total costs, with only eligible items to be funded. Responding to Chair Nelson, the Board members agreed that it would be good to have an incentive program in place. Planner Thorpe offered her assistance in creating the program, noting the Board will then need to fund it each year. She noted that the district plan is not very specific, although the Board has discussed specific items like energy efficiency and permeable surfaces. She stressed the importance of protecting the eclectic character of the neighborhood. Tom Noble voiced an interest in addressing issues where residents may fall victims of demolition by neglect issues, including painting or reroofing of their homes. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese stated she does not want to see the depot compromised. Planner Thorpe cautioned that using monies to upgrade the depot without some type of use or plan seems reckless. Chair Nelson noted any project that mitigates blight could be considered and, as a result, he hesitates to be too specific in this program. He reminded the Board that this district was created to incentivize development, so any projects that increase the taxable value within the district can be considered for funding. Planner Thorpe stated that the Board should review the District Plan and the information provided and the Board can revisit this issue at next month’s meeting and, at that time, provide more guidance on what is to be incentivized in the program. Neighborhood News. Planner Keri Thorpe stated staff is still working on the ordinance to adopt the Peach Street improvement design. She asked Chair Nelson to present it to the Commission, noting that Kevin Jacobsen will also be present to respond to technical questions. Responding to Chair Nelson, none of the Board members attended the recent meeting on the North Rouse Avenue improvements. Bob Pavlic noted that he heard the Montana Department of Transportation will begin acquiring right-of-way in the next two or three years. Chair Nelson thanked Commissioner Liaison Carson Taylor for his participation on this Board, recognizing this may be his last meeting as the Commissioner Liaison. Adjournment – 8:35 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