HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-05 Infrastructure Committee Minutes Infrastructure Committee Tuesday, May 5, 2009 Minutes Councilors Attending: Patricia Blanchette, Peter D’Errico, Richard Stone, Richard Bronson, Harold Wheeler, Geoffrey Gratwick Staff Attending: James Ring, Brad Moore, Paul Nicklas, Ed Barrett, Dan Wellington Others Attending: Tim Woodcock, Joel Hanson, Lee White, Gayle Trewergy Committee convened at 5:00 p.m. 1. Sewer Abatement Request: 27-29 Pearl Street, Account #033003 (Materials Attached) No discussion Councilor Wheeler moved for approval, seconded by Councilor Blanchette. Councilor Blanchette stated this was for 27 - 29 Pearl Street, which was looked at and approved by Staff. 2. Discussion: Citizen Review Panel – Water Quality in the Penjajawoc Watershed The Citizen Review Panel would provide a forum for discussion, comment, and feedback regarding water quality efforts in the Penjajawoc Watershed. The establishment of a Citizen Review Panel was discussed at length at the April 1, 2009 Infrastructure Committee. Staff subsequently met with interested parties and has revised the draft charter. (Memo from Asst. City Solicitor, Paul Nicklas & Draft Charter Attached) Now joining, Paul Nicklas the Assistant City Solicitor. Councilor Gratwick provided overview that the CRP would provide a forum for discussion, comment, and feedback. This would be regarding water quality efforts in the Penjajwoc Watershed. The establishment of a citizen review panel was discussed at length at the April 1 meeting of the Infrastructure Committee. Paul stated there had been one change suggested to what was given in the packet. There was a line in the Mission portion of the charter, the last sentence reads: “As a group currently representing various interests in Bangor and Penjajawoc watershed, CRP will allow for the presentation of a range of ideas and perspectives while providing for an efficient is consultation process. Tim Woodcock suggested taking out the first clause. Remove “as a group representing interested in Bangor and the Penjajawoc watershed”. So the sentence would just read “CRP will allow for the presentation of a range of ideas and perspectives while providing for an efficient consultation process”. His concern was that he did not want to remove the typical Bangor citizen who didn't necessarily have a vested interest in the watershed in particular, but wanted to be a part of the City process. Jim Ring noted that Paul, in particular, had done a lot of work on this working with the parties that had expressed interest, thus far. He just wanted to recognize that and didn't have any further comment. Councilor Bronson asked if the committee would take action one way or the other at this time. Paul suggested they would yes. Councilor Bronson asked if they were seeking an amendment. It was approved with the proposed revision for full Council. 3. Electronic Signs The City has received a request to consider allowing electronic signs with frequent variable message display. This issue was initially discussed at the March 17, 2009 Infrastructure Committee meeting. Staff has drafted Ordinance Changes allowing such signs. A copy of the draft changes and additional materials provided by Bangor Neon are attached. Jim Ring stated this issue was initially discussed at this Committee in March 17. Staff drafted ordinance changes to allow such signs. This topic was also discussed a year or more ago and at this point the City does not have an allowance in the ordinance for signs that change more frequently than 20 minute interval that the state allows. There had been another inquiry from Bangor Neon to revisit the issue to see if the Council and City would consider more frequent changing of message signs. Bangor Neon provided information from both nationally and from other communities. Since they had received additional information that was included in the packet at the March 17 meeting, Staff was directed to put together a potential ordinance for discussion (beginning on page 25 of the packet). Councilor Gratwick requested that a recap be done for the interest of the public. Jim Ring stated he would hit the highlights. As proposed. Electronic signs would be permitted in and General Commercials and Service, Shopping and Personal Service, Industry and Service and with limitation in Government and Institutional Service Districts. These are more commercialized or developed zones in the City and may be placed only if a particular location is on a major arterial street. Those are defined in Ordinance is being Broadway, Hammond, Hogan Road, Main Street, Odlin, State, Stillwater, and Union. Some exemptions proposed: limit pricing information for signage that displayed prices for gas stations etc. The sign would not be greater than 9 ft., and not more than 3 feet in width. The sign would change no more than twice in a 24-hour period. Another exemption, drive-through type businesses not have signs facing a public street or residential area, such as a restaurant or pharmacy. This would propose that consign not be more than 2 ft., nor five feet above the ground. Ed Barrett joined the Committee and stated this would cover all electronics signs, whether was a changeable sign or not they would apply to all electronic signs. Jim Ring noted a few other general conditions that they would only be on premises signs. The electronic changeable portion would be 50% of the sign face allowed and only one electronic signs per lot. There was some discussion at the last meeting about proximity to residential areas proposal paragraph he states such electronic signs would be set back 300 feet from the nearest property line. Between 6 a.m. and 9:59 p.m. a message could house a variable message provided that the duration is at least 20 seconds. And in between 10:00 p.m. 5:59 a.m. it is suggested design not change more frequently than 20 minutes. What could be displayed only text, corporate logos, and non corporate entities. No pictures images. While the display is viewable, it would be static, which meant it wouldn't/scroll etc. The transition of one message or display to another would be one second or less. One concern presented was what would be done about malfunctions. The proposed language would be each sign must be designed and equipped to freeze the sign in a static display if it starts to malfunction. It must also be equipped with a means to shut the sign down if the malfunction override didn't work. This technology is available so it is not something that has been created here. There's also language with respect to notification. If signs are allowed the Code office would be need to be notified and provided with a point of contact, with a person of authority. The next section general language about the brightness design should not adversely impact, nor interfere with the vision of a driver with average eyesight. The sign not interfere with any traffic sign, device, or signal, and no undue brightness. Also propose that brightness during the day be 7500 nits which is a measure of light and intensity. Ed stated it should be 500 nits at night, 5000 was a typo. Paul made a comment many or all of these provisions were safety based. Councilor Gratwick asked if they are safety or State? Paul said some were State provisions as well. Councilor Stone would like to revisit/revising the Sign Ordinance in conjunction with the electronic sign issue. There was discussion of the affect on signs that were grandfathered, with regards to size. Dan Wellington joined the group. A summary of the current standards were provided to the Committee members. Dan stated the Sign Ordinance was about 37 years old and had been extensively amended, and needed to be cleaned up, he also concurred with Councilors Stone. The hand out outlined where freestanding signs would be allowed, their sizes allowance, their setbacks and maximum number. Councilor Blanchette concurred with Councilor Stone. Councilor Wheeler’s opinion was that the provisions were extremely restrictive. Councilor Wheeler requested clarification about exemptions. Councilor Bronson stated his support of having an ordinance such as this for electronic signs and expressed concern with word logos and pictures. Ed Barrett stated whatever they did they would need to be content neutral. Councilor Bronson also brought up the potential of offensive language, Councilor D’Errico questioned whether the Sign Ordinance covered businesses that would close and have to remove their signs within a given period of time. Dan Wellington stated that the Ordinance did require that upon the written statement they had 30 days to remove their signs. Councilor Stone would like to see this revisited. Ed Barrett stated they needed to simplify this Ordinance. If this were to go into effect now Councilor Blanchette would not be comfortable grandfathering anything that went up between now and the end of six months, and stated when the time was ready she would make a motion that does come back to this Committee. Ed said they wanted to come with preliminary language for discussion and made the Committee aware that any sign that goes up now could be electronic signs. There would be some appropriateness in moving this along. Councilor Wheeler agreed they needed to take more time with his Ordinance. Joel Hanson from Bangor Neon referenced one of the proposed changes after 10 o'clock at night and change every 20 minutes which he did not understand. Number two, pictures and text logos, he referenced Governor’s Restaurant desire to show pictures of food on their sign. He also asked why 20 seconds was chosen as a timeframe. Ed stated they took a look at how long a sign was visible at 25 mph; a person to be in visual range and up to 9.5 seconds and the ability to read the sign at 3.5. Councilor Gratwick stated he would put that to the City Staff to review, because the Committee didn't have enough data. Lee White concurred with regards to logos that would be as concerned he also suggested are revising the language to incorporate distasteful logos. Councilor Wheeler requested there be silence for 15 seconds. His point was that when they talk in terms of seconds, 15 seconds was a pretty short time when they talk 20 seconds that's pretty long. He stated he was not going to fight over the 20 seconds. Gayle Trewergy from Bangor Neon once again offered to have any of the businesses on Broadway to demonstrate for the Committee. Councilor Blanchette stated that she did understand the City Manager wanting getting an ordinance in place, but would like to review this further and clean this up. Councilor Blanchette moved that this be tabled. Councilor Blanchette moved to tabled this and it be brought back two weeks from today Counselor Wheeler seconded. There was continued discussion on the 20 second rule, the language, picture, and the overall size. Motion made to adjourn and seconded.