HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-17 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Minutes
Councilors Attending: Patricia Blanchette, Richard Bronson, Harold Wheeler,
Geoffrey Gratwick, Peter D’Errico
Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, David Gould, Paul Nicklas, Nathaniel
Rosenblatt
Others Attending: From Bangor Neon: Gayle Trewergy, Joel Hanson, Bob
White, Lee White
Committee convened at 5:00 p.m.
1. Activity Report: Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning
Nathaniel Rosenblatt, Vice Chair of the Planning Board and Chair of the
Special Committee provided a quarterly overview. The most recent update to
the Comprehensive Plan was in 2005, the Council approved in 2006. The
2010 update shouldn’t be done by the Planning Board exclusively, but also by
a Special Committee on its own, in greater depth. Council had passed an
order to establish a Special Committee which laid out the charges of that
Committee, who would be on the Committee. Council appointed public
members last summer. An organizational meeting was held on September
23, 2008, with meetings every other Tuesday since. The Special Committee
on Comprehensive Planning Agenda was provided for March 24, 2009.
Previously covered topics were the Implementation Plan for 2005 update,
existing land use plan, RR&A, waterfront/harbor, and housing. Items to be
discussed include schools, public facilities, preservation and use of historic
structures, parks and recreational facilities and open space, regional ties and
cooperation, quality of life regarding arts and culture, and future land use
plan. Next meetings would be at 7:00 p.m. on the following Tuesdays, with
the noted topics adjacent:
April 14, 2009 (Economic Development #2)
April 28, 2009 (Transportation/Traffic #1)
May 12, 2009 (Transportation/Traffic #2)
Note: Earle Shettleworth presentation @ BPL @ 6:00p.m
May 26, 2009 (Natural/Water Resources #1)
June 9, 2009 (Natural/Water Resources #2)
June 23, 2009 (Mid- Year Assessment)
1
Nathaniel responded to Councilor Wheeler inquiry of participation; that he
was very pleased with the level of commitment and would soon need the
public participation as well. Councilor Wheeler asked if the Committee had
continued awareness that they were an advisory committee and final
recommendation and approval rested with the Planning Board. Councilor
Gratwick also emphasized the advisory role. Councilor Blanchette asked Jim
and David if the plan was in line with their wants for the updating of the
Comprehensive Plan. David stated they were doing things differently this
year. Last year Staff had written the Plan section by section, this time they
would be discussing broader elements. The Committee requested another
update report in June 2009. Councilor Blanchette was concerned about
public education. Ed stated the Staff tries to explain at planning level
because that’s when people were usually interested. It would also be better
to have something in hand and be able to say “here’s what we think, now
what do you think”, which gets people’s attention.
2. Electronic Signs
Ed stated Councilor Nealley was contacted by Bangor Neon and provided an
outline. The City traditionally follows State law regarding having changeable
signs, but they can’t change more than once every twenty minutes. Lewiston
had requested the State law change, which was then modified. The
Legislature allowed municipalities to adopt local Ordinances. Lewiston’s
Ordinance was provided in the packet along with a copy of the State law and
materials provided by Bangor Neon, the U.S. Department of Transportation
memo indicating what they would permit. If the Committee was interested,
he strongly recommended to not do something like Lewiston did with leaving
out a lot of issues that had come up in other parts of the country. Ed’s
memo provided some items for consideration:
Frequency of signage changing.
Length of time unit to remain static.
Static or moving.
Brightness/Colors.
Size of sign- percentage of sign to be electronic.
Number of signs allowed per location.
Double/Single faced.
Zoning permissible districts.
Distinction between changing electronic signs and static.
Allow near residential.
Requirement, if malfunction, automatic lock so it didn’t continue to
flash.
Limitations of the display.
Violations or penalties.
There was discussion of how often signs should change, driver distraction,
aesthetic issues. Councilor Gratwick asked the reason for the turndown in
April 2007. Jim and Dan recalled that it was due to potential driver
2
distraction and didn’t pursue on the basis of community value, standards, and
appearance. The following is the summary from April 3, 2007: “Staff would
recommend no exploration of changing face times, as there is concern for
safety due to distractions. There was discussion of impact to motorists, data
nationally, home rule Councilor Allen motioned that there be no change,
which was seconded by Councilor Gratwick.” Bob White with Bangor Neon
provided handouts and requested changing the intervals of the signs to every
five seconds. A change every twenty minutes limited what the machine could
do. He also quoted, “they are not a distraction to drivers, it is quite the
contrary, their exceptional readability and conspicuity means that EMC’s
actually improve driver safety” and sited various other articles in support of
electronic signage. He also provided a list of their customers and signatures
in support of signs. Councilor Wheeler asked Bob if they sell, rent, lease,
temporary mount-in-bed of pickups or flatbed signs, which Bob responded
that they were available. Councilor D’Errico asked if signs increased
property/real estate value. Ed stated, not directly, and stated he would
inquire with Assessor if they were taxable. Joel Hanson, Principal at Bangor
Neon stated the signs would not be flashing. Gayle spoke of the history and
progression of signs and the ability to have images with details. These signs
are expensive, ranging from 30,000 to 60,000 per unit. She stated that
having a electronic sign was valuable to the business. There was continued
discussion about if they were taxable and fix real property or personal
property. Ed said he would check with Assessing and provide the
information. Councilor Wheeler asked if there was opposition to eight
seconds as opposed to two or five. Gayle said there would be no opposition.
Ed suggested taking a look at language and sited from the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control, which offers protection against liability. Their basic
suggestion was changes twice while a person was driving past at the speed
limit or the 85 percentile speed in off hours. He said Jim would run some
numbers and it would be based on location, length of message, and the size
of the sign. Councilor Gratwick stated there was reasonable data and
suggested it would be appropriate to go back to Staff for recommendations of
the eleven issues listed in Ed’s memo. He also suggested having community
representation on aesthetics and University Engineers weigh in on the safety
issues. Ed’s suggestion was that if the Committee was interested in pursuing,
have it go back to Staff to do a comprehensive Ordinance. Councilor Bronson
would be supportive but then heard about restrictions and was concerned
about mobile signs, how many colors to appear on the sign, flashing/rolling
pictures or images. But he would supportive of a slower changing speed and
in commercial areas, but not right up to the limit of the zone line near
residential; he would prefer a greater setback in those locations. Councilor
D’Errico would support the comments of his fellow Councilors. Councilor
Blanchette said there would be no decision today, needed information from
the City Engineer, to look at and decide between five and eight seconds.
There was further discussion of the types and length of messages. Joel did
inform the Committee that even though the State had allowed municipalities
to set changes, the State would not allow moving, scrolling, or flashing signs.
Gayle stated she had resources within several national sign associations and
3
could provide some materials that make recommendations for changeable
messages that are based on location, to review and utilize. Ed stated they
would not be getting into that particular type detail. Councilor Blanchette
was not opposed to this but had trouble visually with signs changing every
eight seconds down the Broadway corridor. Gayle said they could get a
couple of business that were close together to provide a demonstration at 8-9
at night. Ed stated Staff would try to get a draft together, but noted the
budget process, and said they would try to get something back in one of the
two meetings in April. Councilor Wheeler stated he supported the majority of
Councilor Bronson’s concerns and it would be appropriate to have a buffer in
commercial establishments that were close to a residential zone, and a
message of eight to ten seconds would be easier for most people to
comprehend.
3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – Notice of Potential
Project Funding – Non-Point Source Pollution
Ed stated the City received notice from the State Department of
Environmental Protection regarding a notice of potential funding for a variety
of stormwater projects through the stimulus program. The loan was for 2.8
million of which 50.6% was a forgivable principle loan that wouldn’t need to
be repaid. 49.4% would be a zero interest loan. The CWSRF funding would
be for Penjajawoc and Birch Stream watershed, the purchase of a high-
intensity street sweeper, and additional monitoring equipment units. They
th
needed to be under contract by May 30, out to bid next week for the street
st
sweeper. Projects for Birch Stream to be committed to by July 21 and
th
Penjajawoc by September 30. All the details were not available but the City
th
needed to respond to the DEP March 24 to indicate acceptance and abide by
construction start dates. The City would like to respond this week and have
rd
Council approve a resolve, ratifying action at Monday, March 23 meeting.
Jim stated he was very pleased these were projects that had been submitted
for consideration. The concern was for water quality issues and that these
grants would be a great way to get started to have the most positive impacts
the soonest. He stated this helped demonstrate progress in working toward
water quality improvements in the impaired watersheds, in particular with
third party interests that were watching statewide. He noted it was a very
tight time frame and would get it done, and the Council would be kept
updated. He stated close working relationship with DEP, the public and
business community. He also noted this was nearly the maximum amount
available to any community, which indicates how important this is. Ed
informed the Committee the maximum for any community was three million.
There had been enough work done to the Birch Stream & Penjajawoc to
identify the types of things that were most practical/cost effective and the
best potential for improvement. Councilor Bronson stated he was supportive,
along with Councilor Gratwick who requested the Council be kept to date, to
perhaps have a presentation within the next 4-6 weeks. Councilor Blanchette
stated not all members were present and may have to ask the Chair to call a
rd
special meeting. Ed stated if this was not passed at Council on the 23, they
4
could write a withdrawal letter to DEP the next day. Councilor Wheeler said
he was fully supportive of giving Staff approval to proceed. Councilor
Blanchette commented that the public would have a great deal of interest
rd
and asked Jim to provide full detail at the Council Meeting on the 23.
Councilor D’Errico agreed and suggested a comprehensive public
statement/press release to make the public aware of this very impressive
grant. Ed stated that some of the projects involved close cooperation with
property owners and should inform them first. He requested
recommendation. Councilor Wheeler recommended the Committee move this
to Council for ratification, and it was seconded by Councilor Bronson. There
was a unanimous vote.
Meeting was adjourned.
5