Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-12 Northeast Urban Renewal Board MinutesNortheast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 13, 2012 The Northeast Urban Renewal Board met in regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, 2012, in the Conference Room, Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. Present: Absent: Voting Members: Tom Noble, Chair Daniel Doehring Erik Nelson Robert Pavlic Jeanne Wesley-Wiese Non-Voting Members: Commissioner Liaison: Chris Mehl Staff: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests: Chris Nixon Dave Chambers Call to Order – Chair Tom Noble called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Public Comment – No comment was received under this agenda item. Consent Items – Approve minutes from October 2, 2012 meeting. It was moved by Erik Nelson, seconded by Bob Pavlic, that the minutes of the meeting of October 2, 2012, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Discussion Items – Bozeman Creek Enhancement Plan – Question and answer session with Peter Skidmore. Chair Noble stated he had invited Peter Skidmore to address the Board about the Bozeman Creek Enhancement Plan since the corridor passes through this district. Mr. Skidmore is unable to attend this meeting or next month’s meeting, so the presentation will be scheduled for the January meeting. Evaluating parking in the District as a whole district rather than site by site. Erik Nelson stated he thinks it would be worthwhile to look at the overall parking within the district, rather than always looking at parking on a site-by-site basis. He noted that the area east of North Wallace Avenue and north of East Peach Street currently has several vacant parcels; and providing for more consolidated parking and connectivity between sites could be beneficial for both those sites and the entire area. He recognized that this proposal would pertain to commercial and industrial development and not to single-family residential development. He also suggested that diagonal parking along the street be encouraged, particularly since it results in nearly doubling the number of parking spaces that can be provided. Responding to Chair Noble, Erik Nelson stated he feels a parking inventory of the entire district would be a useful first step. He also feels it would be beneficial to assess floor to lot ratios of existing development in an effort to identify a potential design pattern and attendant need for parking spaces. Further responding to the Chair, Erik Nelson noted that not all residences in the district have two-car garages, so he feels it would be beneficial to look at residential as well as commercial and industrial developments and possibly consider shared parking. Responding to Chair Noble, Erik Nelson suggested the first step would be to hire an independent consultant to prepare a current parking inventory and identify future parking needs, including the shared parking concept. Planner Keri Thorpe stated her first recommendation would be to complete sidewalks within the district, since connectivity will be a large component of any shared parking. She cautioned against any desire to compare this district to the downtown area, which has on-street parking, alley access and parking lots. She also noted the downtown attracts parking in one spot and walking to various businesses, which she does not see in this district. She concluded by encouraging the Board to put its energy into actual improvements rather than hiring a consultant. Erik Nelson stated he agrees that installing sidewalks in the district would be a better option than conducting a study and analysis; however, he feels it is important to find ways to help people maximize the use of their properties. He then indicated that he will talk to Bobbi Clem, the property owner within the district who first raised this idea. Update on Peach Street Ordinance for adoption of District design standards. Planner Keri Thorpe stated she does not have much to report at this time. Project Engineer Dustin Johnson was handling this issue, but just became a father this morning. She will send another e-mail to Staff Attorney Cooper to see if she can get the process moving; Commissioner Liaison Mehl requested that he be included in the e-mail so that he can help with the follow-up. Further discussion on proposed amendment to Unified Development Code to make all restaurants conditional uses in the Historic Mixed Use District. Planner Keri Thorpe stated that, since the Commission’s direction to the Planning Director has been to make redevelopment and reuse an easier process, she had not been directed to forward this amendment to the Commission. In addition, Planning Director Tim McHarg has submitted his resignation and will be leaving next week; and no Interim Director has been appointed to date. Also, she has submitted her resignation, with her last day being Wednesday, November 21. She has offered to stay longer to cover Planner Kramer’s absence, but has yet to hear back from management. She suggested that options available to this Board include seeking a budget amendment for the $1,500 to $2,000 application fee for the amendment. Responding to Commissioner Liaison Mehl, Planner Thorpe stated she takes her direction from the Planning Director who, in turn, takes his direction from the City Manager who takes his direction from the Commission. She noted the decision not to use staff time to prepare this amendment is in response to the Commission’s direction to make the process easier and more streamlined, with staff making more of the decisions. Commissioner Liaison Chris Mehl urged the Board to put its request in writing and submit it to the Commission so that it can be considered during development of its work plan for the upcoming year. He noted that the Commission’s discussion on this issue will reveal whether or not it will be necessary to pursue a budget amendment to fund the application fee. Planner Thorpe noted that, if the Commission seems receptive to the proposed amendment during the work plan discussion, staff will probably be able to prepare the amendment at no cost to the Board. Chair Noble indicated that he will prepare a draft letter for this Board to consider at next month’s meeting so that it can be forwarded to the Commission prior to the January meeting at which proposals for next year’s work plan are considered. Brewery Wall Update. Planner Thorpe stated that Associate Planner Allyson Brekke has indicated the two-year stay on the requested demolition of the wall will be on the December 3 agenda, although no official action is required by the Commission. She noted that the two-year stay is scheduled to end on January 10, 2013; and staff is trying to determine if any of the conditions applied to the original demolition application can still be applied to this agenda item, since the demolition application has clearly expired. Dave Chambers, 224 North Church Avenue, stated he is a member of the NorthEast Neighborhood Association and has been working with the group interested in saving the brewery wall. He noted that at the last NENA meeting, they learned the City has changed its interpretation and determined that issuance of the final demolition permit is ministerial and automatic rather than Commission action being required at the upcoming meeting. Responding to Jeanne Wesley-Wiese, Planner Thorpe stated the applicant has never submitted the difference in costs between reinforcement of the wall and demolition. Dave Chambers noted the rough estimate was $200,000 to stabilize the wall and approximately half that amount to demolish it. He voiced his concern that he cannot ask anyone for monies to stabilize the wall until he has a mechanism to do so; and the change in process has brought any attempts at fundraising to a halt. He noted that the possibility of declaring the wall a nuisance has also been discussed, but doing so would result in its being torn down, which is not the desired result. He concluded by stating it is extremely difficult to get an engineering firm to give a cost estimate on stabilizing the wall. Chair Noble cautioned that one must be able to get on the property to conduct an analysis and prepare an estimate. Responding to Chair Noble, Dave Chambers confirmed there has been no communication from the owner indicating his position. He expressed concern that the way the City’s ordinance is currently written, one must jump through hoops to modify a historic property; however, one has simply “punch the time clock” to tear a historic structure down, then wait for that time to pass and draw the demolition permit. He suggested that requiring a bond in conjunction with approval of an application for modification of a historic property could help to alleviate this situation, as well as other properties in town like the Rialto Theater and the Armory. He noted the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is considering a proposal to require bonds for commercial historic buildings, stressing that this requirement would not apply to single-family residential properties. Responding to Chair Noble, Commissioner Liaison Mehl stated he supports the idea of requiring bonding for development, but noted that it must be narrowly tailored to gain support from the Commission. He then noted that a demolition by neglect ordinance is another issue that has been discussed in the past but has always remained a low priority so has never been accomplished. Planner Thorpe noted that financial guarantees are triggered under any site plan process and have been required for certain landscaping improvements not completed prior to occupancy; and acceptable options have included letters of credit, bonds and cash. Responding to concerns voiced by Erik Nelson, Dave Chambers stated that requiring a financial surety does not result in a huge financial burden on the developer; rather, it is essentially an insurance policy that costs a low percentage of the face amount annually. Chair Noble noted it is important to remember that the brewery building was occupied and viable before the developer received approval for his project. He stated people have short memories and now view the site as if it had been condemned, which is not the reality. Jeanne Wesley-Wiese asked what type of development could occupy the site once the brewery wall is demolished, particularly if the property is also removed from the national historic register. Planner Thorpe stated any development on this site will still be required to comply with historic guidelines. Responding to questions from Erik Nelson, Dave Chambers stated that, with regard to the wall itself, those interested in saving the wall need a viable option; however, the owner is unwilling to talk to them. He noted that if the owner were willing to say he would preserve the wall, then they would have an option to work with for fundraising. Dave Chambers noted there are only ten brewery districts nationwide. As a result, he stated there are some outside sources who would be willing to contribute to the saving of this district. He then noted the brewery has significance to both the district and the entire community. He suggested that if the developer had initially proposed demolition of the structure, people would have come out in opposition to the application; however, the developer’s proposal to include the front wall in the new development dispelled that opposition. Chair Noble suggested it may be beneficial to evaluate the demolition permit process and possibly include the requirement to determine integrity of the structure prior to approval of any demolition permit. He cited several buildings in the community that have been demolished but found to be structurally sound during that process. Planner Thorpe noted one change in the code is that an applicant must now pay impact fees and pull a building permit in order to pull a demolition permit; that requirement was not in place when this application was approved. Erik Nelson suggested that, in this instance, the developer stopped the project because it did not pencil out financially in the current economy and he chose not to continue to bleed. Commissioner Liaison Chris Mehl stated that, in his mind, the Commission did not serve the community well in its decision on this issue; and it is important that it now determine how to proceed with the preservation of other historic properties in the community. Update on Depot Historic Preservation Grant. Planner Keri Thorpe stated that one of the items on the December 3 Commission agenda is authorization for the City Manager to enter into an agreement with CTA Engineering to do a structural analysis of the depot. She noted that the City has received a $5,000 Preserve America Grant, and this Board has budgeted $15,000 for the analysis. The total cost of the analysis will be $18,500, which is under the total amount budgeted. Responding to questions from the Board, the Planner stated the Railroad has agreed to allow the consultant to get into the facility to conduct the analysis. Chair Noble expressed an interest in the Board members seeing the inside of the facility if possible during this analysis. Neighborhood News. Chair Noble stated the gentleman from Bangtail Bike has opened a new bike shop in the district. Bob Pavlic noted he has heard the depot can be purchased for $146,000. Planner Thorpe responded that Joe Gentry has indicated he receives two or three offers each year, but the railroad is not actively pursuing sale of the depot, so the offers are simply set aside. She then cautioned that it is difficult to know whether Montana Rail Link owns the depot or simply leases it from Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Adjournment – 8:19 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, Chair Noble adjourned the meeting. Tom Noble, Chair Northeast Urban Renewal Board City of Bozeman