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.